REPORT OF THE
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION
INTO THE
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS
October 2000
“It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice.” Deng Xiaoping, Premier of China, “Time”, 6 January 1986
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS Chairperson: Mr Peter Kirby Ground Floor, 55 St Andrews Place, Melbourne Vic 3000 GPO Box 4356QQ, Melbourne Vic 3001 Telephone: (03) 9651 0324 Facsimile: (03) 9651 0543
27 October 2000
The Hon Andre Haermeyer MP Minister for Police and Emergency Services and Minister for Corrections Level 1, 55 St Andrews Place MELBOURNE VIC 3002
Dear Minister
The Panel has now completed its work and we are pleased to submit our report for your consideration.
In the course of our investigation we received the fullest of cooperation and support from Departmental officers in your portfolio and, in particular, from management and staff in the Commissioner’s office, CORE and those public and private prisons we visited. Full support was also given to us in our more limited contact with the Office of Post Compulsory Education, Training and Employment, and the Department of Human Services.
Our work was greatly aided by the information and advice provided to us by individuals and interested organisations through the many submissions we received and our consultations.
Mr Kevin Phelan of Maddock Lonie and Chisholm provided invaluable support to the Panel in responding quickly and comprehensively to our many requests for legal advice.
We wish to record our great appreciation of the support given to the Panel by Liz Penter, our Executive Officer, and Isabel Keeling our Office Manager. Their work was consistently of the highest quality and they never failed to meet the many pressing timelines. We are most grateful for their professional assistance.
Together with the recommendations of other recent reviews of Victoria’s prisons, we are confident that the proposals in our report will assist the Government to integrate the State prison system into one which will be recognised internationally as best practice.
Yours sincerely
Peter Kirby Vivienne Roche Brian Greaves (Chairman) (Member) (Member) INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 1
Contents Page 1. Introduction...... 3 1.1 Conduct of the Investigation...... 3 1.2 Emerging Gains ...... 4 1.3 Emerging Issues...... 4
2. The Corrections System in Victoria: An Overview ...... 7 2.1 Prison Services ...... 7 2.2 Growth in Prisoner Numbers ...... 9 2.3 Prisoner Movements ...... 11 2.4 Prisoner Profile ...... 11 2.5 The Structure of the Corrections System in Victoria...... 13 2.6 Legislation ...... 16 2.7 The Contractual Framework ...... 16 2.8 Monitoring Performance...... 17 2.9 Prisoner Management ...... 18 2.10 Prisoner Placement ...... 19 2.11 Industries and Education...... 20 2.12 Prisoner Health Services...... 21 2.13 Staffing ...... 22 2.14 Advisory Committees and Boards ...... 23
3. The Contractual Arrangements...... 25 3.1 The Flexibility of Contracts...... 26 3.2 Responding to Performance Issues...... 27 3.3 The Legislative Imperatives ...... 28 3.4 Contractual Arrangements in Western Australia ...... 28 3.5 Comparison of Private Prison Contracts...... 29 3.6 The Competitive Review of Operations ...... 31
4. Monitoring Performance...... 33 4.1 An Outcomes-Based Approach to Performance Measurement ...... 33 4.2 Specification of Standards ...... 33 4.3 Measuring Performance Through Service Delivery Outcomes ...... 34 4.4 Review of Service Delivery Outcomes...... 36 4.5 A Different Approach to Performance Management...... 39 4.6 Current Arrangements for Monitoring Compliance ...... 41 4.7 Alternative Models for Monitoring Performance ...... 41 4.8 Proposed Arrangements for Performance Monitoring of the Victorian Prison System..43 4.9 Public Reporting ...... 45
5. Staffing...... 47 5.1 Context...... 47 5.2 Recruitment and Selection of Staff...... 48 5.3 Current Training Practices in Private Sector Prisons...... 49 5.4 Promoting Leadership in Victoria’s Prison System...... 51 5.5 Staffing Models ...... 53
6. Managing Prisons and Prisoners...... 57 6.1 Individualised Prisoner Management ...... 57 6.2 Records and Information Transfer...... 60 6.3 Work, Education and Programs...... 61 6.4 Drug Treatment Programs ...... 68 6.5 Managing Prisoners at Risk of Self-Harm...... 70 6.6 Pre- and Post-Release Programs...... 71 INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 2
6.7 Responding to the Needs of Women Prisoners ...... 73 6.8 Responding to the Needs of Prisoners from Different Cultural and Ethnic Backgrounds74 6.9 Other Support Services Within Prisons ...... 74 6.10 Prison Crowding ...... 77 6.11 Prison Design and Maintenance ...... 78 6.12 Security...... 81
7. Health Services ...... 83 7.1 Current Problems with the Delivery of Health Care...... 84 7.2 A New Approach to the Health Care of Victorian Prisoners...... 87 7.3 Departmental Responsibilities ...... 89 7.4 The Corrections Health Board ...... 91 7.5 Medicare Eligibility...... 91 7.6 Clinical Audits...... 92
8. Integrating Victoria’s Corrections System ...... 95 8.1 Current Structural Arrangements...... 95 8.2 The Role of the Commissioner ...... 96 8.3 Planning and Research...... 102
9. Summary and Conclusion ...... 105
Postscript – Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre ...... 109
Summary of Recommendations...... 113
Appendices
I Submissions to the Investigation Panel...... 119 II Consultations with Individuals and Organisations...... 121 III Status Report – Implementation of Recommendations from Inquiries and Reviews ...... 125 IV Open Learning Australia and Private Prison Education/Training Requirements...... 129
Glossary...... 133
Bibliography ...... 135 INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 3
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1 CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATION
On the 27 April 2000 the State Coroner, Graeme Johnstone, handed down his findings into five deaths at Port Phillip Prison.
In response to these findings, the Minister for Corrections requested the Secretary, Department of Justice, to commission an independent investigation into the management and operation of Victoria’s three private prisons. The investigation was to draw upon work conducted to date by the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner.
1.1.1 Terms of Reference
The terms of reference of the investigation were: i) Examine the present legislative and contractual arrangements to determine whether they provide adequate specifications, incentives and accountabilities to achieve an appropriate standard of quality in service provision within private prisons. Recommend additional measures or changes to commercial arrangements where appropriate, to ensure quality service provision can be both achieved and effectively sustained. ii) Examine the contractual framework and individual contractual arrangements to identify opportunities to streamline and simplify contract management arrangements for private prisons, with a view to better support effective and timely management of service provision under the contracts including resolving issues such as service profile adjustment, performance shortcomings and emergency situations. iii) Consider the operation of private prisons in relation to their correctional services performance and examine the adequacy of present arrangements including security management; safety for prisoners, staff and visitors; the adequacy of training; and staffing models. iv) Recommend measures to ensure that the Victorian corrections system operates in a more consistent, cohesive and integrated manner, particularly in relation to the provision of health services, risk identification and management, and prisoner management issues.
The Private Prisons Investigation Panel (Investigation Panel) was appointed and commenced its inquiries in early July 2000. The Panel comprised Peter Kirby, Chairperson, Vivienne Roche, Senior Policy Analyst, and Brian Greaves, Correctional Services Expert.
During the course of its investigations, it conducted a literature review, received 49 written submissions in response to public advertisements, met with more than 55 individuals and groups, and received specialist advice in relation to legal issues. The Panel visited the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre, Fulham Correctional Centre and Port Phillip, Melbourne Assessment, Tarrengower and Loddon Prisons, and consulted with staff and prisoners at each of these locations. The Panel also consulted a number of people with special knowledge and/or experience in aspects of prison management. Details of all of these contacts are contained in appendices I and II.
A steering group comprising senior officers of the Department of Justice provided assistance to the Panel and was a valuable ‘sounding board’. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 4
The Panel’s investigations have taken account of the legislative, contractual, management and systemic issues identified in other reports,1 as well as the submissions and opinions of individuals and groups consulted. The findings and recommendations are, however, the responsibility of the Panel.
1.2 EMERGING GAINS
In addition to the financial benefits, Victorian prisoners are now accommodated in new, state of the art facilities which are much improved compared with the 19th Century prisons some of them replaced. There is little doubt that these new prisons would not have been deliverable in the timeframe if they had been funded purely from the State budget.2
It is important to take a balanced view of the impact of the changes to the Victorian corrections system. While media and public attention has tended to focus on specific incidents at individual prisons, it is important to acknowledge that there have been a number of areas where the introduction of new providers has had positive outcomes.
• The standard of prisoner accommodation has improved. The opening of the three new private prisons enabled the closure of out-dated, inadequate facilities at Fairlea, Coburg (Pentridge and Metropolitan Reception Prisons), Sale and Morwell River. Less than 10% of prisoners are now accommodated in prisons built more than 100 years ago, and more than 70% of design capacity across the prison system is now less than 15 years old.
• Standards of care for prisoners have been clearly documented. Although issues are starting to arise that have been attributed to the lack of input standards, the specification of output and outcome standards that apply to all prisons has been most important in developing a more transparent policy framework and public accountability for the provision of prison services in Victoria.
• An accountability framework has been implemented that incorporates the monitoring of contractual compliance, accreditation of various services (including health), scrutiny by Official Visitors, the Ombudsman and community groups, and by public reporting of performance data relating to individual prisons. The current level of scrutiny applied to the private providers is unparalleled in the history of the corrections system in Victoria.
• The multi-provider model has brought greater attention to prison and prisoner management systems. The establishment of forums to engage stakeholders at all levels has the potential to develop a more collaborative culture with benefits for further initiatives in, and development of, Victoria’s prison system.
1.3 EMERGING ISSUES
The performance of private prisons, as with government prisons and any other services provided for people under statutory care, must be measured on service quality.3
Certain sectors of the community are ideologically opposed to privatisation, particularly in the provision of correctional services. This has been fuelled by the media focus on deaths and other incidents within private prisons, and has demonstrated the extent to which public perceptions of the prison system as a whole can be influenced by such events.
1 Russell, E. W. 2000, Audit Review of Government Contracts: Contracting, Privatisation, Probity and Disclosure in Victoria 1992–1999; Johnstone, G. 2000 Deaths in Custody at Port Phillip Prison: Record of investigation into the deaths of George Andrew Drinken, Adam Courtney Irwin, Vienh Chi Tu, Michael Filips and Rodney David Koers, Part 1 Findings, Discussion, Recommendations and Comments; Auditor-General of Victoria 1999, Special Report No. 60: Victoria’s Prison System: Community Protection and Prisoner Welfare; Victorian Correctional Services Task Force 1998, Review of Suicides and Self Harm in Victorian Prisons. 2 Submission from Dennis O’Neill, CEO, AusCID. 3 Submission from the Victorian Council of Social Service. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 5
Concerns about these incidents have led to a number of reviews and investigations, and the resulting reports have identified a range of problems. The Investigation Panel was encouraged to find that a number of identified problems have already been resolved, and that strategies have been (or are being) implemented to eliminate, or at least minimise, such incidents in the future.
Nonetheless, problems remain, including: • the limitations of the contractual and legislative framework; • inadequacies in the performance monitoring model, which is focused primarily on measuring throughput rather than providing incentives to enhance service delivery; • the fragmentation of the corrections system at all levels; • the limited provision of health services, particularly in country prisons; • inadequate prison programs, particularly for preparation for release; • inadequacies in the competency-based model of staff training for the corrections system; • the variable interpretations of ‘case management’; • information management systems; and • resourcing of the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner.
When considering the performance of the State’s prison system (both public and private prisons) it is important to recognise that the system’s management is affected by a number of factors beyond the prisons’ control. Changes to the law, law enforcement and sentencing policy, reflecting (as they may) changes in society and community expectations, have led to increasing prisoner numbers and rates of imprisonment. In turn, this has resulted in overcrowding in the State’s prisons and a higher number of prisoner movements. Both these results give rise to significant additional difficulties for prison management.
Since the introduction of private prisons, Victoria has more prison accommodation in non- metropolitan areas than in the metropolitan area. The location of prisons and the changing prisoner profile (for example, the substantial increase in prisoners with some degree of drug dependency) have aggravated the problems of overcrowding.
On the face of it, these problems are unrelated to the introduction of private prisons; yet, they call for more prison accommodation and greater differentiation in the treatment of prisoners. They have implications for the way existing prison accommodation is developed, and more built. The Government confronts the question of whether it should use public funds to modify and extend prison accommodation, or whether to again turn to private contractors to finance the capital requirements.
The Government has made a commitment to develop more and better managed alternatives to confinement in prisons. In time, these developments should reduce the growth in prisoner numbers, but they will involve costs and place pressure on the corrections budget.
In light of these facts, and the Government’s contractual obligations, the Investigation Panel took the view that private prisons may be expected to be a part of Victoria’s corrections system for at least the 20 years of their contracts. Therefore, the system’s objectives should be founded on the need to: • integrate private and public prisons in one seamless system; • support improved performance in all the State’s prisons; and • develop collaborative approaches to sharing information, and designing and implementing programs for the security, safety and rehabilitation of prisoners.
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 7
Chapter 2 The Corrections System in Victoria: An Overview
In Victoria, the Department of Justice is responsible for the adult corrections system, which comprises prison services and community correctional services.4 The Government’s key outcome for the correctional services system is that offenders in Victoria are treated in a just and humane manner, and encouraged to adopt law-abiding lifestyles.
2.1 PRISON SERVICES
The 13 prisons in Victoria provide a total design capacity of 2,875 places, but they currently accommodate over 3,000 prisoners, including persons remanded in custody.
Ten of these prisons are managed by the public provider, CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise (CORE). CORE also manages all Community Correctional Services in the State, such as Intensive Correction Orders, Community Based Orders and Parole Orders. It also manages the Security and Emergency Services Group (SESG), which is used on a contract basis by private prison providers and by the Correctional Services Commissioner.
Corrections Corporation of Australia (CCA) manages the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre (MWCC). It also has the contract for prisoner transport, security and escorts at the higher courts in Victoria.
The Fulham Correctional Centre is managed by Australasian Correctional Management (ACM). It also has the contract for prison health care services at nine CORE prisons through its subsidiary Pacific Shores Health Care. ACM took over the management of the Melbourne Custody Centre (previously managed by the Victoria Police) in March 1999.
Group 4 Correction Services manages the Port Phillip Prison. This prison houses the system-wide secondary and tertiary medical services, including a prison hospital and long-term psychiatric unit. Group 4 also has the contract for the Victoria Police prisoner transportation service.
Approximately 55% of prisoners are held in the ten prisons operated by the public provider, and 45% of prisoners are held in the three prisons owned and operated by private sector companies.
Table 2.1 Publicly Operated Prisons in Victoria Prison Design Security Prisoners Commenced Capacity Level Operation Ararat Prison 256 Secure Male 1967 Barwon Prison 250 Secure Male 1990 Beechworth Prison 123 Secure Male 1860 Bendigo Prison 80 Secure Male 1863 Dhurringile Prison 106 Open Male 1965 Langi Kal Kal Prison 100 Open Male 1993 Loddon Prison 250 Secure Male 1990 Melbourne Assessment Prison 250 Secure Male 1989 Tarrengower Prison 38 Open Female 1987 Won Wron Prison 127 Open Male 1964
4 Young offenders are managed by the Department of Human Services, except in special circumstances. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 8
Table 2.2 Privately Operated Prisons in Victoria Metropolitan Prison security level Secure Women’s Design capacity 125 females; maximum, medium and minimum security ratings Correctional Operator Corrections Corporation of Australia Centre (MWCC) Completion date5 20 August 1996 Description MWCC is a multi-purpose prison providing a complex mix of facilities and services including reception, maximum security, medium security and specialist accommodation for remand and sentenced, mainstream and protection women prisoners. Accommodation is provided in single cells in cottage style units and special cell blocks. Increasing numbers of female prisoners have resulted in capacity being temporarily increased by up to 30 beds. Fulham Prison security level Secure Correctional Design capacity 590 males; medium and minimum security ratings Centre Operator Australasian Correctional Management Completion date 7 April 1997 Description Fulham Correctional Centre incorporates: • medium security cell blocks and lodges; • medium security protection units; • minimum security cottages; and • a drug treatment unit. Prisoner accommodation is in single cells. Port Phillip Prison security level Secure Prison Design capacity 580 males; maximum, medium and minimum security ratings Operator Group 4 Correction Services Completion date 10 September 1997 Description Port Phillip Prison provides 13 accommodation units with single cells. The primary male remand, and most complex, prison in Victoria, this multi-purpose prison provides a mix of remand and sentenced, mainstream, protection and specialist accommodation including: • a management/security unit for male prisoners; • protection accommodation for male remand and sentenced prisoners; • a 20-bed inpatient hospital unit providing statewide secondary inpatient and outpatient health services; • a psycho-social unit for male prisoners; • a special care unit for male prisoners who require special regimes such as vulnerable, physically disabled or intellectually disabled prisoners; and • short-term accommodation for prisoners awaiting transfer to other prisons or pending resolution of health or legal matters.
5 The initial Service Term runs for five years from the Completion Date. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 9
2.2 GROWTH IN PRISONER NUMBERS
Victoria’s current imprisonment rate is 85.4 per 100,000 adult population. This is the lowest of any Australian State. Historically, Victoria also has an extremely low rate of imprisonment compared to other countries.
Table 2.3 National Imprisonment Rates 6 Imprisonment Rate June quarter, 2000 Northern Territory 459.3 Western Australia 218.1 Queensland 182.2 New South Wales 151.0 Tasmania 120.4 South Australia 114.9 Victoria 85.5 Australia 143.9
Nevertheless, in recent years Victoria has experienced significant growth in prisoner numbers (in common with other States and relevant international jurisdictions). Since 30 June 1996, Victoria’s prison population has grown by 29%.
On 30 June 1996, Victoria’s prison population was 2,440. On 10 September 2000, the total number of prisoners peaked at 3,254 – an increase of 814 prisoners. This growth is due to three main factors: • an increasing number of offenders being sentenced to prison (increasing receptions); • increasing sentence lengths for serious offences (compounding growth); and • the impact of the drug problem, which has increased the rate of receptions, particularly for prisoners serving short sentences, and contributed to a wide range, and seriousness, of offences. It is estimated that 70–85% of prisoners have drug problems.
2.2.1 Growth in Numbers of Male Prisoners
The number of male prisoners in Victoria increased by 28% from 30 June 1996 to 30 June 2000, peaking at 3,047 on 10 September 2000. The number of men received into prison custody each year has also increased from 3,761 in 1995-96 to 4,343 in 1998-99, an increase of 15%.
2.2.2 Growth in Numbers of Female Prisoners
Over the five years to 30 June 2000, the number of women prisoners in Victoria increased by 58% from 116 to 183. During the same period, male prisoner population increased by only 28%. The number of women prisoners in Victorian prisons peaked at 210 on 9 September 2000.
The number of women received into prison custody each year has also increased, from 374 in 1995– 96 to 535 in 1998–99, an increase of 43%. Male prisoner receptions increased by 15% over the same period.
The imprisonment rate for women has similarly increased from 6.6 per 100,000 adult population at 30 June 1995 to 10.3 per 100,000 for the June quarter 2000.
6 Imprisonment rate per 100,000 adult population. Australian Bureau of Statistics 2000,Corrective Services, Australia: June Quarter 2000. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 10
2.2.3 Prison Occupancy
As a result of the increase in prisoner numbers, there is significant crowding in Victorian prisons and police cells. The Victorian prison system is currently operating well in excess of its design capacity, and this has meant using more than 450 temporary beds (such as stretchers and bunk beds) across the system.
Figure 2.1 Prisoner Numbers and Prison Capacity as at 30 June
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Prison design capacity Prisoners
Projections suggest that the growth in prisoner numbers is likely to continue, and may climb to 3,500 as soon as 2002 if current trends are maintained.
2.2.4 Proposed New Capacity
In addition to a range of diversionary initiatives, various strategies have been proposed or endorsed to accommodate and manage the increased number of prisoners. The Minister for Corrections announced a major Prison Capacity Expansion Program as part of the 2000–2001 State budget, which provided funding for an additional 357 permanent places. These included: • 50 beds at the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre; • 68 minimum security beds at Fulham Correctional Centre delivering the first part of a community transition program; • three 20-bed community-based transitional facilities based in metropolitan Melbourne providing pre-release programs (two for men, one for women); • expansion of two existing public prisons to provide 145 extra beds for male prisoners (75 maximum security beds at Barwon and 70 medium security beds at Loddon); and • expansion of specialist metropolitan prison capacity with the provision of 34 new beds, including additional beds for prisoners in need of acute psychiatric assessment, at Port Phillip Prison.
However, the number of new beds is fewer than the number of temporary beds currently being utilised. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 11
2.3 PRISONER MOVEMENTS
One of the Victorian prison system’s principles is that the number of prisoner movements should be minimised. Excessive movement around the system is unsettling for prisoners; it increases the risk of escape and, for vulnerable prisoners, the risk of self-harm.
Anecdotal evidence suggests that the number of prisoner movements has increased. The total number of prisoner movements over the past two financial years has been high, but stable.7 During 1999–00, the total number of prisoners averaged slightly over 3,000. In this 12 months there were: • almost 5,000 prisoner receptions and discharges; • approximately 10,000 prisoner transfers from one prison to another; • more than 18,000 movements within prisons (that is, prisoners moving from one unit to another within the same prison); • more than 11,000 movements to court; and • around 4,500 occasions on which prisoners were escorted from a prison to attend a medical or hospital appointment.
The Panel heard that this large number of movements was caused by an increase in prisoner numbers, and the rate of movement around the system has risen to maximise occupancy. Reduced prison beds in the metropolitan area has meant prisoners have limited time to remain in Melbourne to ensure legal, medical or other issues are resolved prior to their transfer to non-metropolitan prisons. Instead, prisoners are transferred to country prisons for periods as short as one week, returned to Melbourne to access court or health services, and then returned to their classified location.
2.4 PRISONER PROFILE
The majority of prisoners received into the Victorian prison system are characterised by serious offending or repeat offending, as well as by complex personal needs and problems. Over 60% of male prisoners and over 58% of female prisoners have previously been in prison.
Young people (aged between 17 and 24 years) have traditionally been the largest group of offenders in the criminal justice system. Although the proportion of young people in the community is decreasing, the proportion of young people in the criminal justice system is increasing. In addition, international research suggests there is a strong but complex link between crime and drug use. Illicit drugs have a pervasive influence on prisoners’ behaviour and the nature of their offences. This is reflected in the increasing number of drug offences, and in the incidence of other serious crimes such as robberies, assaults and homicides.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders continue to be overrepresented in the prisoner population. Indigenous male prisoners comprise between 4% and 5% of the total male prisoner population; however, their imprisonment rate is more than 10 times higher than the overall imprisonment rate. Indigenous female prisoners also comprised around 4% of the total female prisoner population until 30 June 2000, when the proportion more than doubled to 8.2% (that is, 15 prisoners).
Approximately 75% of prisoners were born in Australia. Of those born overseas, the largest group is those born in Vietnam (4.3% of male and 6.6% of female prisoners), followed by the United Kingdom (3.9% of male and 3.3% of female prisoners).
7 During 1996 and 1997, the number of prisoner movements increased significantly as a result of the three new prisons opening, five older prisons closing, and the Melbourne Assessment Prison (formerly the Remand Centre) being reconfigured. Therefore, 1998–99 and 1999–00 are the only two years for which data exist that relate to prisoner movements within the current prison system. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 12
Table 2.4 Profile of Victorian prisoners8
Male Prisoners Female Prisoners
Male prisoners comprise the overwhelming majority Female prisoners comprise a relatively small of the Victorian prison population. They account for proportion of the Victorian prison population. They approximately 90% of all prisoner receptions and account for approximately 10% of all prisoner about 94% of the prison population. receptions and about 6% of the prison population.
As at 30 June 2000 there were 2,970 male prisoners in As at 30 June 2000 there were 183 female prisoners in Victorian prisons: Victorian prisons: • 21.5% were under 25 years of age; • 27.3% were under 25 years of age; • 11.3% were 50 years of age or over; • 5.5% were 50 years of age or over; • 4.1% identified themselves as Aboriginal or • 8.2% identified themselves as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander; Torres Strait Islander; • 60.5% had been in prison previously (including • 58.5% had been in prison previously (including periods spend on remand); periods spent on remand); • 86.6% were undergoing a sentence of • 78.7% were undergoing a sentence of imprisonment; imprisonment; • 38.7% of sentenced prisoners were serving 12 • 59.0% of sentenced prisoners were serving 12 months or less;9 months or less;9 • 44.2% of sentenced prisoners reported that they • 60.4% of sentenced prisoners reported that they had committed their offence(s) under the had committed their offence(s) under the influence of drugs and/or to support a drug habit; influence of drugs and/or to support a drug habit; • 24.1% had been identified as a suicide risk; • 30.6% had been identified as a suicide risk; • 24.6% were recorded as ‘protection’ prisoners; • 21.3% were recorded as ‘protection’ prisoners; • 88.3% had not completed secondary schooling; • 79.8% had not completed secondary schooling; • 60.1% had been unemployed at the time of their • 76.0% had been unemployed at the time of their reception into custody; and reception into custody; and • 29.8% were married or in defacto relationships at • 35.5% were married or in defacto relationships at the time of their reception into custody. the time of their reception into custody. The most serious offence for which male prisoners The most serious offence for which female prisoners were sentenced or remanded was: were sentenced or remanded was: • offences against the person (31.9%); • offences against the person (18.6%); • robbery/extortion (12.6%); • robbery/extortion (19.1%); • property offences (26.1%); • property offences (30.6%); • offences against good order (10.9%); • offences against good order (9.8%); • drug offences (11.7%); • drug offences (16.4%); • motor vehicle/traffic offences (2.8%); and • motor vehicle/traffic offences (1.1%); and • other/unknown (4.0%). • other/unknown (4.4%).
A profile of male prisoners undertaken in early 1999 A profile of female prisoners undertaken in early 1999 revealed: revealed: • 83% had a drug problem; • 66% had an existing drug habit; • 6% were on methadone; • 15% were on methadone; • 85% had been imprisoned previously or placed on • 85% had been imprisoned previously or placed on community based orders; community based orders; • 57% had been imprisoned previously and placed • 47% had been imprisoned previously and placed on community based orders; and on community based orders; • 64% had breached a correctional order. • 59% had breached a correctional order; and • 24% had a partner who was also in prison.
8 Figures for 30 June 2000 are from the OCSC Data Warehouse. All figures are provisional, pending publication of the Australian Bureau of Statistics Prison Census 2000. 9 Note that the proportion of sentenced prisoner receptions serving less than 12 months is significantly higher than the stock figure reported in the table. For 1998-99, for example, 75.5% of male and 87.9% of female prisoners who were sentenced at the time of reception into custody or who were unsentenced at the time of reception but who subsequently received a sentence of adult imprisonment, received a sentence of less than 12 months. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 13
2.5 THE STRUCTURE OF THE CORRECTIONS SYSTEM IN VICTORIA
Historically, the government owned and operated all prisons in Victoria. Until 1992, the Office of Corrections (OOC) operated as a separate government department that reported to the Minister for Corrections. Established in August 1983, the Office of Corrections was responsible for policy and planning of the adult corrections system, and for the delivery of all prison and community correctional services.
However, since 1992, the corrections system has undergone a significant change that involved the private sector’s participation in financing, designing and constructing prison facilities, and operating prisons under contractual agreements.
2.5.1 System Developments 1992–96
In October 1992, the Office of Corrections was abolished and reconstituted as the Correctional Services Division of the new Victorian Department of Justice. A Director, Correctional Services was appointed to head the new Correctional Services Division, which initially retained all the functions of the previous Office of Corrections.
In the following year, the Corrections (Management) Bill was introduced into State Parliament. This Bill established the legislative framework for private sector involvement in the corrections industry. Later in 1993, the then Government announced that expressions of interest would be sought from the private sector for the design, financing, construction and management of three new prisons to replace the Coburg prison complex and Fairlea Women’s Prison.
In deciding to facilitate private sector involvement in the delivery of correctional services, the then Government agreed to the following objectives for the New Prisons Project: • replace inadequate and ageing plant at Pentridge Prison, the Metropolitan Reception Prison and Fairlea Prison with new facilities and increase the capacity of correctional facilities to meet projected demand; • ensure the scope and quality of services to prisoners is maintained and/or enhanced; • meet government policy objectives of private sector involvement in prison operations with consequential transfer of risk to the private sector; • establish competition among private and public sector providers of correctional services; • retain the ability to test the competitiveness of the Contracted Provider from time to time; • introduce private sector investment funds (equity) into Victorian prison infrastructure; and • introduce new approaches to the design, construction and management of prisons.
During 1994, the then Victorian Government awarded the tender for prisoner transport, security and escorts at the higher courts to Corrections Corporation of Australia. It also introduced the Corrections (Amendment) Bill. This Bill enabled the Minister for Corrections to enter into contracts for the financing, construction and operation of privately owned prisons, and provided for the appointment of a Commissioner for Correctional Services.
The Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner (OCSC) commenced operations within the Department of Justice in 1995. The following year CORE was established separately within the Department of Justice and headed by its own chief executive.
In August 1996, the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre opened and Fairlea was closed. Fulham Correctional Centre opened in April 1997 and enabled the closure of the Sale, Morwell River and Pentridge prisons. Five months later, Port Phillip Prison opened and the Metropolitan Reception Prison was closed. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 14
2.5.2 Organisational and Regulatory Environment 1994–99
The Briefs to Short-Listed Parties for the three private prisons’ establishment each included a description of the proposed corporate, organisational and regulatory environment within which both publicly and privately operated prisons would function. The proposed organisational structure’s objective was to establish a competitive market between public and private correctional services providers, and to provide a clear separation between the purchaser and provider roles, and between policy and service delivery.
Under this model, the Department of Justice retained the key roles of setting policy and standards to ensure the safe custody and welfare of prisoners and offenders. However, responsibility for providing correctional services was contracted out to one public and three private providers.
The major parts of this correctional model were the Minister for Corrections (as the ‘purchaser’ of services); the Department of Justice (as the organisation that sets policy and standards, and monitors performance of service providers); and the providers of prison and community correctional services. (See figure 2.2 below.)
Within the departmental structure, the Secretary is responsible to the Minister for the strategic management of the Justice portfolio, which includes police and emergency services, consumer affairs, and legal structures and processes as well as corrections. Under the Corrections Act 1986, the Secretary is deemed to have custody of all prisoners.
The Deputy Secretary, Justice Operations has overall responsibility for the operation of the corrections system.
The Director, Justice Policy within the Department of Justice fulfils the role of Contract Administrator, whose role is to: • identify the correctional services to be purchased by the State; • establish appropriate contractual arrangements; and • administer the contracts on behalf of the Minister for Corrections.
The Contract Administrator regularly reviews reports from the Correctional Services Commissioner concerning the performance of the service providers, and levels of compliance with their contractual obligations.
The Corrections (Amendment) Bill, introduced in October 1994, provided for the appointment of a Commissioner for Correctional Services within the Department of Justice. The Commissioner’s role is described in section 8A of the Corrections Act. It states that:
(1) The Secretary may under the Public Sector Management Act 1992 appoint a person to be Commissioner for the purposes of this Act.
(2) The Commissioner is responsible for – (a) monitoring performance in the provision of all correctional services to achieve the safe custody and welfare of prisoners and offenders; and (b) exercising any other functions relating to correctional services that the Secretary may determine from time to time.
(3) The Commissioner must endeavour to exercise his or her functions in relation to correctional services impartially between all providers of correctional services so far as this is consistent with the safe custody and welfare of prisoners and offenders and the proper operation of the correctional services. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 15
Figure 2.2 The Correctional Services System in Victoria
M inister for C orrections
Secretary, Department of Justice
Deputy Secretary, Justice Operations
O ffice of the Justice Correctional P olicy Services Division Commissioner
• Policy & standard • Contract setting administration • Performance • C om m ercial / financial monitoring a ccou nta bility • Strategic Planning • Sentence Management
Australasian CORE – the Public Corrections Group 4 Correctional Correctional Corporation of Correction Management Enterprise Australia Services
Prison Prison Services Prison Prison Services Ararat, Barwon, Services Services Fulham Beechworth, Metropolitan P o rt P hillip C orrectional Bendigo, Women’s Prison Centre D hurringile, Correctional Langi Kal Kal, Centre Loddon, Prisoner Melbourne Transport Assessm ent, Tarrengower, between prisons Won Wron Court Security Prisons Community Correctional Services
The Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner is the organisational unit that assists the Correctional Services Commissioner to oversee and provide system-wide leadership. The OCSC: • strategically plans and develops the correctional services system; • develops and sets statewide policy and standards; • independently monitors the quality and consistency of delivery of correctional services by both public and private providers; and • advises the Minister about each provider’s performance and level of compliance with contractual obligations.
The OCSC is also responsible for key statewide functions such as the management of prisoner sentences, including prisoner assessment, classification and placement (through the Sentence Management Unit), sentence calculation through Central Prisoner Records, and the provision of administrative support to the Adult Parole Board. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 16
2.6 LEGISLATION
As noted above, the Corrections Act and the Corrections Regulations provide the legislative basis for the provision of correctional services. Two sets of amendments to the Corrections Act have enabled correctional services to be delivered by private providers in Victoria.
The Corrections (Management) Bill introduced in March 1993 set out the legislative framework for private sector involvement in the corrections industry. It enabled the Department to engage a person or organisation to perform any of the functions and exercise the powers conferred by the Corrections Act.
The Corrections (Amendment) Bill introduced in October 1994 enabled the Minister for Corrections to enter into contracts for the financing, construction and operation of privately owned prisons; and provided for the appointment of a Commissioner for Correctional Services.
2.7 THE CONTRACTUAL FRAMEWORK
2.7.1 Prison Services Agreements
The three prisons managed by private providers are under contracts known as Prison Services Agreements between the State of Victoria and the Contractor responsible for the development, management and operation of the prison. Each Contractor also has arrangements with its financier who is not party to the Prison Services Agreement. A separate tripartite deed between the State, the Contractor and the financier gives the financier certain rights in relation to the Prison Services Agreement governing the relevant prison.
In addition to clauses relating to the construction and commissioning of each prison, the Prison Services Agreements require the Contractors to provide specific services:
• Accommodation Services – to provide and maintain facilities to house the required number of prisoners. Each private provider owns the prison that has been built on Crown land and leased to the provider by the Government; and
• Correctional Services, which includes the general operation of the prison, prisoner education and training, prison industries, other prisoner programs, and health services. These correctional services have to meet required standards, known as ‘Prison Management Specifications’.
The owners are currently obligated to provide prison facilities for 20 years (with provision for extensions), and prison services for five years. The Minister has the option to re-tender for the provision of correctional services every three years after the initial five-year period, but is subject to certain limitations.
2.7.2 Operating Agreements or Deeds
Each Contractor has the right to appoint an Operator to manage the prison and provide the Correctional Services. The relationship between the Contractor and the Operator is governed by an operating agreement or deed to which the State is not party (although the Secretary must approve such arrangements). Notwithstanding the appointment of the Operator, the Contractor remains responsible for providing all services under the Prison Services Agreement and is liable to the State in the event of any breach of the Prison Services Agreement’s terms. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 17
2.7.3 Payments
The State pays the Contractor through three separate charges: • the Accommodation Services Charge; • the Correctional Services Fee; and • the Performance Linked Fee.
The Accommodation Services Charge and Correctional Services Fee may vary in line with prisoner numbers or certain defaults. The Performance Linked Fee is directly linked to the Contractor’s performance in providing the Accommodation Services and Correctional Services10. These are calculated by referring to the Contractor’s performance measured against the specified service delivery outcomes. The Performance Linked Fee was intended to form the Contractor’s return on equity, or the profit.
2.7.4 Defaults
The Prison Services Agreements contain remedies for failure to meet the terms of the contracts, providing for reduction of fees, claims for damages and, most seriously, a right to terminate the agreement and request the appointment of another operator.
Apart from the remedies for failure to meet the Prison Services Agreement’s requirements, the Minister also has the power under section 8F of the Corrections Act to intervene in the management of the prison if there is an emergency or a failure to provide competent management and the Minister considers that it is in the public interest or the interest of the safe custody or welfare of prisoners to intervene.
If a material breach of the contract or a serious default led to termination of the Prison Services Agreement, the State would be responsible for paying out the Contractor’s obligation to its financier.
2.8 MONITORING PERFORMANCE
2.8.1 Standards
Each Prison Services Agreement includes Prison Management Specifications (annexure T of each contract). These reflect the Correctional Policy and Management Standards that apply to all prisons in Victoria. The standards focus on outcomes and were intended to encourage the delivery of innovative services by describing the service outputs required, while leaving the delivery method to the Operator.
2.8.2 Service Delivery Outcomes
Each of the Prison Services Agreements includes a number of Service Delivery Outcomes (SDOs) that measure performance against a range of key correctional services. These are contained in an annexure to each Prison Services Agreement in the case of private prisons, and in the Service Agreement with CORE in the case of public prisons
These SDOs establish specific, quantitative targets against which performance of the Operator is measured. The levels of performance in relation to each SDO were based upon data accumulated over the three to four years prior to the contracting out of prison services.
10 For MWCC, Accommodation Services comprise 40% and Correctional Services comprise 60% of the Performance Linked Fee. For both Fulham Correctional Centre and Port Phillip Prison, Accommodation Services comprise 35% and Correctional Services 65% of the Performance Linked Fee. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 18
Payment of the Performance Linked Fee to private prison Contractors is linked to prison performance as assessed by the achievement of targets established against each of the SDOs for each prison. While the newness of the Service Delivery Outcome approach has required a focus on monitoring, the Performance Linked Fee represents only 5% of overall funding.11
The major categories of SDOs measure the following areas:
• Prison Operations: − escapes; − incidents of self-mutilation or attempted suicide; − assaults on prisoners, staff or others; and − prisoners who test positive to non-prescription drugs;
• Education and Training: − enrolments in, and completion of, modules relating to adult basic education and vocational training;
• Prison Industries: − prisoners’ participation rates; and − number of skill areas/functions in which prisoners are able to participate,
• Health: − medical screening on reception into prison; − psychiatric assessment; − complaints regarding health issues; and − Primary Care (comprising measures such as percentage of prisoners who are medically screened by a health care professional within 24 hours of reception into the prison, percentage of ‘at risk’ prisoners assessed by a psychiatric care professional within two hours of referral, and number of valid complaints made by prisoners to the Health Services Commissioner and/or the Ombudsman regarding health care issues).
• Other Programs: Participation in: − Sex offender treatment programs; and − Substance abuse awareness, education and treatment programs.
2.9 PRISONER MANAGEMENT
Prisoners are to be managed in such as way as to meet the Government’s objectives of containment and supervision, rehabilitation, and reparation to the community.
Prisoner Management encompasses all aspects of managing a prison. The prison management system should effectively: (a) control and supervise prisoners in a humane and just manner while maximising the protection of the community; (b) provide for the personal safety of staff and prisoners through a prison environment that aims to protect the physical and emotional wellbeing of individuals;
11 KPMG Consulting for the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner 2000, Review of Service Delivery Outcomes: Final Report, p. 8. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 19
(c) encourage prisoners to develop responsibility for their actions and reinforce law-abiding and non-violent participation in the community; and (d) provide prisoners with opportunities for rehabilitation.12
While there is one Prison Management Specification related to prisoner management, in fact all specifications relate, directly or indirectly, to the effective management of prisoners.
2.10 PRISONER PLACEMENT
The Sentence Management Unit (SMU) within the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner determines prisoners’ placements and their subsequent progression through the prison system. The SMU must balance security, management concerns, needs of prisoners, the public’s need for protection, and the efficient and effective operation of the correctional system.
The Sentence Management Unit’s prisoner management function commences with: • determination of a prisoner’s security classification (maximum, medium and minimum security are the three classifications utilised within the system); • creation of an individual management plan for the prisoner, including consideration of any special needs of the prisoner (such as a special protection requirement); and • optimum placement of the prisoner to a selected prison.
Following the prisoner’s arrival at the selected prison, responsibility for prisoner management decisions transfers to the prison operator who is required to: • provide prisoners with sufficient information and adequate orientation upon reception into the prison; • undertake an individual assessment of the prisoner with a view to establishing treatment needs;13 • assign the prisoner to a particular unit within the prison; • designate a case manager to supervise the prisoner’s individual management plan, including the programs designed to meet the management of the prisoner or to support the prisoner in achieving rehabilitation goals; and • form a local Review and Assessment committee comprising representatives of prison management and other corrections and program staff at the prison to review the prisoner’s progress against the individual management plan.
2.10.1 Monitoring
The OCSC progressively monitors the ongoing tasks undertaken at the local prison level in managing prisoner plans, and reviewing progress against plans. In other words, the SMU has the key responsibility, beyond its important initial decisions (as described above), for monitoring the overall effectiveness of prisoner management functions progressively undertaken within prisons.14
12 Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner 1995 Correctional Policy and Management Standards: Women’s Prisons in Victoria p.17 and Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner 1996 Correctional Policy and Management Standards: Men’s Prisons in Victoria, p.17. 13 For example, under the Correctional Policy and Management Standards, the prison provider must ensure that all prisoners’ literacy and numeracy skills are assessed within one month of their arrival in the prison, and subsequently provide access to accredited adult basic education, including workplace literacy programs for those who require it. 14 Auditor-General of Victoria, op. cit., pp. 105–06. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 20
The Monitoring and Review Unit within the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner conducts a second layer of review and monitoring. It is responsible for assessing the extent to which correctional services in the public and private sectors have been delivered against the required standards.
2.11 INDUSTRIES AND EDUCATION
The Corrections Act establishes the authority for the provision of prison industry sites and prison industries. In section 84H, the Act provides that the Secretary of the Department of Justice may, for or in connection with the management of prison industries and prison industry sites, direct sentenced prisoners to work, and requires prisoners to comply with such directions.
There are three types of industries in prisons: primary, manufacturing and service. Primary industries include agriculture and horticulture, landcare, landscaping, reafforestation, and beef production. Manufacturing industries include formed wooden products, metal fabrication, electronic component assembly, and textiles. Service industries include activities associated with the operation of kitchens, laundry, internal cleaning and general maintenance within prisons.
Prisoners are required to work for six hours per day, 10 days per fortnight and are paid at a rate approved by the Correctional Services Commissioner. Time off from work can be approved to allow prisoners to undertake part-time studies and, wherever possible, the accredited training programs they undertake are to be integrated with their work. Allowance is also made for prisoners to participate in certain rehabilitation programs during work hours.
Prison Operators are required to keep a separate set of accounts for prison industries. Any profits made by the private prison operators from the operation of prison industries are to be disbursed in agreement with the Secretary of the Department of Justice. The Corrections Contracts Branch oversees this component of the Prison Contracts.
The Correctional Policy and Management Standards require that ‘prisoners are given opportunities to develop skills necessary for effective participation in the labour market after their release’.15 To this end, prison managers must provide accredited education and training programs that enable prisoners to continue training as they move through the prison system. They must also allow prisoners to pursue part-time studies that are accredited with outside education providers.
2.11.1 Corrections Industry Training Board (CITB)
The Corrections Industry Training Board is the principal source of advice to the Correctional Services Commissioner regarding training. This Board is responsible for ensuring that the allocation of resources for training to the adult corrections and juvenile justice systems is in line with policy developed by the OCSC in overseeing both public and private sector custodial agencies.
The policy requires all prison providers and Community Corrections Services to ensure adult prisoners and offenders on community corrections orders have access to accredited vocational education and training programs that will assist them to develop employment skills for use in the labour market upon release.
The CITB: • provides advice to the Correctional Services Commissioner and the General Manager of the Office of Post Compulsory Education, Training and Employment on the education and training needs of adults and juveniles in custody and on community corrections orders;
15 Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner 1995, Correctional Policy and Management Standards: Women’s Prisons in Victoria Department of Justice, p.38 and p.39; Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner 1996, Correctional Policy and Management Standards: Men’s Prisons in Victoria Department of Justice, p.38 and p.40. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 21
• oversees the development of the annual Corrections Industry Training Plan; and • develops strategies for ensuring the ongoing delivery and monitoring of accredited training to public and private sector prisons, and to adult and juvenile offenders on community corrections orders.
2.11.2 The Corrections Education Management Consortium
The Corrections Education Management Consortium reports to the CITB and is responsible for coordinating vocational education and training programs across the corrections system, and for developing initiatives in vocational education and training for the corrections system.
All Prison Operators are required to provide information pertaining to the education and vocational training needs of the prisoner population on an annual basis to inform the development of the annual Corrections Industry Training Plan.
The Correctional Policy and Management Standards for both women’s and men’s prisons require all prison providers to supply accredited education and training programs that are consistent with, and link to, the priority programs and pathways outlined in the annual Corrections Industry Training Plan.
2.11.3 Post-Release Employment and Further Training Programs
No systemic Post-Release Employment and Further Training Program has been in operation since 1993, although a pilot project for Aboriginal prisoners operates from Loddon Prison, funded by the Commonwealth Government.
Significant scope exists for programs that ensure more effective re-integration of prisoners, and which particularly emphasise placement in the labour market or in related training programs.
Such a program would be in line with Recommendations 24–29 of the 1996 Senate Inquiry into Education and Training in Correctional Facilities. This inquiry sought the development of strategies by State/Territory and Commonwealth agencies to coordinate services and programs for prisoners, pre- and post-release.
2.12 PRISONER HEALTH SERVICES
2.12.1 The Health Model
The changes to Victoria’s prison system resulted in a revised approach to prison health care service provision. The following three-tiered intervention model was developed to encompass all health care needs:
• Primary Health Care: Services routinely provided at a local level, such as medical practitioner sessions, psychiatric consultations, nursing services, dentistry, optometry and limited access to pathology and radiology.
• Secondary Health Care: Services usually found in a community or district hospital. These services are usually subject to referral from primary care. Such services may include inpatient services (acute medical, surgical and accident and emergency), inpatient nursing, ambulatory care, psychiatric services not requiring involuntary admissions, and specialist medical outpatient services. Secondary services may also include support and allied health services such as physiotherapy, occupational therapy and diagnostic services.
• Tertiary Health Care: Services usually found in a major hospital or referral centre including the highest levels of diagnostic and treatment services. These services are usually subject to referral from primary or secondary care. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 22
All prison operators are responsible for providing primary health care services within their own prisons. The current model allows for the health service delivery to be sub-contracted (as is the case at Port Phillip Prison and all CORE prisons) or provided in-house (as at Fulham and MWCC).
Secondary and tertiary general health care services are provided by the contracted health care provider (St Vincent’s Correctional Health Service) at Port Phillip Prison pursuant to a Health Agreement.
2.12.2 Corrections Health Board
The Corrections Health Board was established in May 1999 following the release of the report of the Review of Suicide and Self Harm in Victorian Prisons (Kirby Report) which recommended the establishment of the Board.
The functions of the Corrections Health Board are summarised in the Board’s terms of reference: • to oversee and direct the planning of health and related services for offenders, and to provide advice in respect of policy development, standards setting and performance monitoring of health services in the Victorian correctional system; • to promote system-wide participation and collaboration in the development of ‘best practice’ in the standards and delivery of health services; and • to oversee and advise on research and development initiatives that will enhance service standards and system performance.
Members are appointed jointly by the Minister for Corrections and the Minister for Health. The Policy and Standards Unit of the OCSC provides executive support to the Board.
2.13 STAFFING
Standards for correctional services do not specify staffing requirements, apart from a general requirement that staff must be appropriately selected and trained, sufficient in number, and deployed in a manner that facilitates the achievement of the required correctional services outcomes.
Each Contractor (through the Prison Operator) is responsible for: • recruiting, selecting and training of staff employed at the prison; • providing pre-service and in-service training programs; • rostering and deploying staff employed at their prison; and • selecting and arranging hours of contractors.
The Commissioner is responsible for: • approving the initial training program; • approving any other staff training programs; and • providing authorisation and clearance of all proposed staff, in compliance with the requirements of the Corrections Act. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 23
2.14 ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND BOARDS
2.14.1 Official Prison Visitors
The Official Prison Visitors scheme provides the Minister for Corrections with independent advice regarding the operation of the prison to which the Official Visitor is appointed. A secondary role is to facilitate contact and involvement between the prison and the community. The scheme was established in July 1986.
Official Visitors are expected to meet with prisoners and staff at the prisons to which they have been appointed at least once every four weeks. They must provide a written report to the Correctional Services Commissioner following each visit.
The OCSC seeks interested applicants through a public advertising process. The OCSC assesses applicants and makes recommendations the Minister for Corrections. Appointments are made for a period of two years under section 35 of the Corrections Act.
Meetings of Official Visitors, which the Minister usually attends, are held every six months.
The OCSC’s Monitoring and Review Unit provides support services to the Official Visitors scheme and addresses any issues raised in the monthly reports received from Official Visitors.
2.14.2 Chaplains Advisory Committee (CAC)
The Corrections Act guarantees prisoners the right to practise the religion of their choice. The only exemption would be if this requirement would result in a situation contrary to the good order and security of the prison.
All prison providers fund chaplaincy programs within their prison. CORE directly funds a number of chaplains, from a range of denominations, to provide services within the public prison system. Each private provider funds a position of Coordinator of Chaplaincy Services. The Coordinator then negotiates to ensure prisoners’ religious needs are met. This can be done through the Coordinator providing services, or by arranging for other chaplains to come to the prison. Appointments to chaplaincy positions are made on nomination from the churches and the advice of the Chaplains Advisory Committee.
The Chaplains Advisory Committee was established in 1965 to provide advice and a forum for discussion on chaplaincy services between the churches and prison managers. The OCSC assumed responsibility for liaison with the Committee in July 1998 and regular six-monthly meetings are held between the CAC, OCSC and prison providers to discuss issues of concern.
2.14.3 Ministerial Community Advisory Committee (MCAC)
The Ministerial Community Advisory Committee (MCAC) was established by the then Minister for Corrections in September 1989. MCAC oversees the Custodial Community Permit, or temporary leave of absence Program (CCPP).
Custodial community permits may be issued to prisoners for health, physical fitness, education, administration of justice, community assistance, family ties, or rehabilitation/reintegration reasons.
MCAC is only involved with rehabilitation/reintegration permits, which aim to prepare a prisoner for release by enabling them to establish community ties, look for work and accommodation, or to undertake other relevant activities. Prisoners serving a minimum sentence of three years or more are eligible to participate during the last 12 months of their sentence. Prisoners serving a minimum sentence of six years or more may apply to participate during the final third of their sentence (up to a maximum of three years). These applications are considered by MCAC. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 24
MCAC also advises the Minister, when necessary, about ‘high-profile’ prisoners who are participating in the program, and responds to matters referred by the Minister.
The Sentence Management Unit of the OCSC provides executive support to MCAC.
2.14.4 Prison Industries Advisory Committee
The Prison Industries Advisory Committee advises the Minister for Corrections on issues relating to the operation of industries within the Victorian prison system. An officer of the OCSC provides executive support to the Committee.
2.14.5 Community Liaison Committees
Group 4 Correction Services at Port Phillip Prison and Australasian Correctional Management at Fulham Correctional Centre have established community liaison committees to address issues raised by local communities about the prison. In addition to community representatives, membership of the committees includes the OCSC and local government representatives. The committees meet on a quarterly basis.
2.14.6 Victorian Women’s Prison Council
The Victorian Women’s Prison Council was established in September 1953 as the Consultative Council for Female Prison Reform to provide advice on matters relating to reforms for women prisoners. Thirteen councillors are appointed biennially by the Minister for Corrections. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 25
Chapter 3 The Contractual Arrangements
The contract as a legal device can only ever give the Government limited control over the quality of the services which it contracts out.16
This section of the report examines the scope for streamlining and simplifying contract management arrangements, and the flexibility that the contracts provide for addressing changes to requirements or resolving performance issues. The contracts with the private prisons are now the central feature of the State’s management of the provision of correctional services.
The previous Victorian Government decided that there were advantages for the State in entering into contractual arrangements with private companies for the provision of prisons and prison services. Chapter 2 briefly outlines this process and describes the features of the Prison Services Agreements (PSAs), but it is by no means complete. The contracts are complex and detailed. They have continually required the Department of Justice to take legal advice on their provisions and scope. For example, apart from the PSA governing the agreement between the State and the MWCC, there are a number of related documents including: • the Accommodation Services Support Agreement; • the Operator Manual, which forms part of the PSA as noted in the definition agreement; • the Design and Construction Guidelines – defined as guidelines that exist from time to time for the design and construction of prison facilities in Australia and overseas including without limitation: - the applicable United Nations Standard Minimum Rules of Treatment of Prisoners 1984; - standard guidelines for prison facilities in Australia and New Zealand 1990; - American Correctional Association Standards for adult correctional institutions, second edition ACA 1991; and - new prison policy guidelines, design criteria, standard design documents and space standards, California Department of Corrections 1993. • the Education Agreement entered into between the Contractor and the State Training Board; • Equity Support Agreement entered into by the Contractor and others on or about the date of the PSA; • the Lease relating to the land that is the site of the prison; • the Operating Agreement; • the Project Contracts defined to mean the Construction Contract (the contract between the Contractor and the builder for the construction of the facility); • the Project Facility Agreement between the Contractor and Societe Generale Australia Limited; and • the Tripartite Agreement between the Minister, the Contractor’s financier and the Contractor.
These contractual arrangements underpin the multi-provider correctional services system and impact on the Victorian Government’s capacity to adjust policy and make changes to the prisons’ operations.
16 Submission from the Centre for the Study of Privatisation and Public Accountability, Law Faculty, Monash University. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 26
3.1 THE FLEXIBILITY OF CONTRACTS
In the case of private prisons, the contractual model can actually impede resolution because the operator and the Government can become locked in contractual enforcement mechanisms, rather than the Government simply directing that the problem be resolved.17
Contracts are, by their very nature, inflexible; they are designed to give certainty to the parties involved. However, within the corrections system, it is often impossible to anticipate changes to prisoner numbers and profiles, particularly in the medium to longer term. The prison system as a whole cannot ‘gate keep’. It cannot establish waiting lists, but must be able to accept all persons sentenced to a term of imprisonment or remanded in custody. Therefore, the system must be able to respond quickly and appropriately to fluctuations in prisoner numbers, to changes in the management needs of the prisoner population, and to changes in government policy.
Given the complexity of prison management and the financial imperatives influencing the operations of private prisons, the Contractors (as might be expected) have taken care to ensure they will not be commercially disadvantaged if the State wishes to change the arrangements.
As with any contract, the PSAs can be amended with the consent of the parties (that is, the Contractor and the Minister for Corrections, on behalf of the State). However, it is likely that Contractors will only consent to the contract’s amendment if they are compensated for any additional expense or risks associated with that change.
Each of the three PSAs includes clauses relating to ‘Change in Policy’, where the State can propose a variation, including changing the legislation. The contracts detail the process to be followed in such cases, and include notification of the proposed change, consideration of consequent changes to operating manuals and fees, implementation of the changes, and dispute resolution where aspects of the change cannot be agreed.
The Investigation Panel was advised that making amendments may involve an issue of compensation for the costs of implementing the change, and any additional ongoing costs introduced by the change. When confronting a proposal for a significant change to the arrangements, the Contractor will naturally assess all of the potential effects that such a change may have. This explains why the change in policy provisions in the PSAs provides for consultation and negotiation between the parties, and for any change to be made only after agreement is reached.
The Panel heard from a number of stakeholders about frustrations with the inflexibility of the current contractual arrangements, whereby changes to requirements may necessitate complex and protracted negotiations. By comparison, the relationship between the State and the publicly operated prisons is seen to support the State’s ability to swiftly respond to operational requirements without needing to resort to ‘duelling lawyers’.
The Panel noted that sixteen ‘Change in Policy’ notices have been issued since the commencement of the private prisons, requiring, for example: • an increase in the size of the drug treatment program to 68 beds, establishment of a 16-bed peer educators’ unit, and additional weekly urinalysis screening for all prisoners in the two intensive drug treatment program modules at Fulham Correctional Centre; • implementation of a methadone program at Fulham Correctional Centre; and • suicide prevention programs at all three private prisons.
17 Submission from the Victorian Council of Social Service. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 27
The Panel also noted that the Department of Justice plans to utilise the Change in Policy provisions to increase the capacity at each of the three private prisons using funding from the 2000–2001 State budget.
While the Change in Policy process is somewhat convoluted, the Panel did not hear that the process had impeded consideration of proposals for, or implementation of, changes to the delivery of correctional services. However, the nature of the process undoubtedly makes the Department and the Minister reluctant to seek change. In contrast, the public provider has indicated a preference for a more formal process so changes to service delivery requirements in CORE prisons would be adequately described and costed, rather than simply being told to ‘just do it’ within existing budget.
It is clear that the PSAs do not allow the State a great deal of flexibility to alter the arrangements from time to time without cost consequences. Legal advice18 suggests that this is normal in a commercial contract and reflects the complexity of the arrangements with the Contractors. The Panel believes that such contractual arrangements will always impose restrictions on the State’s ability to change arrangements for the delivery of correctional services. The commercial basis of these contracts will continue to result in some inflexibilities, whatever streamlining of the contracts' terms is able to be achieved.
3.2 RESPONDING TO PERFORMANCE ISSUES
The Panel heard of similar matters to those outlined above in relation to the process for resolving issues arising from the Operator’s performance.
A further complication ensues from the contractual arrangements in these cases: the terms of the operating agreement or operating deed between the Operator and the Contractor are binding on the Operator, but the PSA is not. Of course, the PSAs’ terms still have an effect, as they bind the Contractor who is responsible for the services provided by the Operator.
Where problems with an Operator’s performance arise, the contracts provide little flexibility to change the arrangements. Changes to the PSA might be made but they would have to be the subject of negotiation, almost certainly resulting in compensation to the Contractor if agreement is reached to the changes. Where a material default in the operations of a prison is not remedied, the Government can require the Contractor to remove the Operator, but the Contractor (not the Government) is responsible for appointing a new Operator.
At the end of a Contractor’s Service Term (initially five years), there is an opportunity for the Government to call tenders. However, any successful tenderer would need to enter into an operating agreement with the Contractor, not the Government, since the Government is not a party to the operating agreement. Moreover, the replacement of an Operator as a result of a tender process would not, of itself, provide for amendment of the PSA.
The major difficulty which the government faces in responding to deficiencies in service delivery is that the contracts effectively require the Government to tolerate significant shortfalls in performance.19
Therefore, the Government is confronted with major difficulties if it tries to respond quickly and flexibly to changes in a prison Operator’s performance, and to changes in circumstances governing prisons or the requirements of a prison system. The contractual arrangements’ limitations mean that although it may be possible to make the enforcement mechanisms for inadequate performance more stringent, it is questionable whether the use of the contractual remedies will ever be sufficient to secure the outcomes the Government may desire.
18 The legal advice referred to in this section was provided by Maddock Lonie and Chisholm. 19 Russell, E. W., op. cit., p. 21. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 28
It is difficult if not impractical to enforce adherence to qualitative outcomes in a contractual agreement. This is a major problem inherent in using contract as the preferred method of service delivery.20
By its nature, the contract imposes obligations on the parties and limits their ability to make changes. In the case of the PSAs, this means there will be restrictions on the Government’s ability to secure all the outcomes it might want from the operation of correctional services. The need to leave the Operator and Contractor with some measure of discretion and operational autonomy will inevitably rob the Government of some control.
Nevertheless, in the case of the MWCC PSA there is a provision whereby the contractor agrees to indemnify the Minister and the Minister's employees against any losses or liabilities related to or arising out of the exercise by the contractor of its powers, including any omission or failure to act. Neither the Fulham PSA nor the Port Phillip PSA include an indemnity clause in these terms. The Panel believes that the Minister should seek to include in those PSAs a similar clause to bolster the State's common law rights relating to, amongst other things, breach of contract and the tort of negligence.
3.3 THE LEGISLATIVE IMPERATIVES
The limitations placed on operational flexibility by the contractual arrangement are not eased by the current legislative framework (the Corrections Act and Corrections Regulations). In fact, the Panel considers that the Act does not fully reflect the changes to the operational framework brought about by the introduction of the private providers.
Although the legislation provides powers for the rights of access by authorised persons to a private prison, and emergency powers for intervention by the Minister in the operation of a private prison, most of the matters relating to the operations of private prisons are left to the detail of the contracts.
The panel has received advice which indicates that, as a result of the contractual relationship between the parties, a common law duty of care is owed by the contractor to the State in respect of the services performed by the contractor. Advice also indicates that a similar duty is owed by the contractor to the prisoners in its care. The Panel is of the view that these duties are an essential component of the private prison arrangements. The Panel suggests that the continued existence of these duties in unfettered form should be protected by an appropriate amendment to the Corrections Act 1986. For example, section 8C of the Corrections Act could be amended to include the following subsection:
"(3) An agreement under section 8B(1) must not contain any clause that expressly or impliedly derogates from the duty of care owed by the contractor: (a) to the Crown; or (b) to any prisoner or offender."
3.4 CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENTS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
In view of the limitations imposed by the contractual arrangements between the State and the private prisons in Victoria, the Investigation Panel sought advice on the legislative and contractual arrangement that had been made for the new Acacia Prison in Western Australia (WA).
It was known that the WA authorities had studied the contract terms and operational experience of private prisons in other States (including Victoria) before drawing up the arrangements for the latest private prison, Acacia. Therefore, the Panel sought legal advice on the main differences between the
20 Submission from the Centre for the Study of Privatisation and Public Accountability, Law Faculty, Monash University. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 29
WA contract and those of the three Victorian private prisons. In particular, the Panel wanted to identify the advantages and disadvantages of each approach in responding to the need to make operational changes from time to time.
There are differences between the two in respect of organisational and management arrangements (for example, with regard to the Monitor and, in the WA case, Inspector of Custodial Services). These matters are covered in chapter 4 of this report.
The key difference in legislative regimes governing private prisons is the greater detail incorporated into the WA legislation. Although both the WA Act21 and the Victorian Act22 set out certain matters that must be included in the prison services contracts, the WA Act contains more detail in relation to those requirements. Section 15C of the WA Act includes the following matters that are not considered in the Victorian Act: • codes of ethics and conduct to be approved by the Chief Executive Officer (CEO); • notification of any change in the control, management or ownership of a Contractor or a sub- contractor; • the financial and other consequences of intervention by the CEO in a private prison contract; • reporting procedures to notify the CEO of escapes, deaths of prisoners and other emergencies or serious irregularities; and • investigation procedures and dispute resolution mechanisms for complaints about the provision of prison services under the contract.
In Victoria the PSAs, not the legislation, include those provisions in one form or another.
The WA legislation also goes further than the Victorian legislation in: • expressing (section 15H) that provisions of the Act override anything to the contrary in a prison services agreement; and • providing for an annual report by the CEO to the Minister on each Contractor providing prison services.
3.5 COMPARISON OF PRIVATE PRISON CONTRACTS
The Acacia contract and the Victorian PSAs differ markedly in one respect: the Acacia contract deals almost solely with the provision of correctional services. There are separate contracts between the WA Minister for Works and contractors dealing with the design and construction of Acacia Prison, and the prison’s maintenance. Acacia Prison is owned by the State.
As described in chapter 2, in Victoria the Contractors have, at their cost, built the prisons and recoup their investment in those developments through providing accommodation and correctional services. In this way, Victoria has avoided a large initial capital investment but has to meet that expense by way of recurrent expenditure.
The advantage of the WA arrangements is that there is a separate contract relating to the provision of correctional services. This means any newly appointed contractor can commence providing services without needing to make an initial capital investment in the prison. This reduces the risk for the contractor, and therefore could be expected to result in lower recurrent costs for the State. Of course, the benefit has been brought about by the State’s large investment in the prison’s construction.
21 Prisons Act 1981 (WA) 22 Corrections Act 1986 (Vic.) INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 30
When the Acacia operational contract expires, the State can extend the operation period, or appoint a new contractor. It has no obligation to the existing contractor in terms of negotiating a further term, or justifying the appointment of another contractor.
The arrangements in Victoria vary from prison to prison, but all PSAs place more obligations on the State than the Acacia contract. As the Contractors in Victoria hold substantial equity in the prisons, they are exposed to significant debt in respect of their investments.
The provisions in Victoria’s PSAs are more detailed than in the Acacia contract: they require consultation and correspondence between the parties, and result in greater delays in making changes. The PSAs require that a number of preconditions be met before there can be a change in the prison operator. In the context of the competitive review process relevant to Fulham and Port Phillip prisons, these preconditions include negotiations with the Contractor, setting of benchmark costs and the requirement that any new operator purchase the Contractor’s equity (including any subordinated debt) in the prison. This would represent a significant initial capital investment by any new operator and could be expected to result in higher recurrent costs to the State.
The MWCC PSA differs from the other two PSAs in that there is no requirement for the incoming operator to purchase the Contractor’s equity. Under the MWCC PSA (clause 61) the Minister may initiate a competitive review process leading to a request for tenders, but with no obligation on the Minister to set a benchmark price or negotiate with the existing Contractor.
In contrast, Fulham PSA (clause 61) provides that, in the first instance, the Contractor may submit an offer to the Minister for the provision of correctional services for a further term. If this is done, the Minister must negotiate with the Contractor and, within a certain time, advise the Contractor whether the offer is above or below what the Minister determines is the benchmark cost for running the prison for a further term. Only if the Minister and the Contractor cannot agree on a basis for the provision of correctional services by the Contractor may the Minister then initiate the competitive review process and request tenders. If any new operator is chosen as a result of the tender process, that operator must purchase the existing Contractor’s equity in the prison.
The default provisions in the WA contract and Victoria’s PSAs are relatively similar, although there are some differences: • the definition of a default in the Acacia contract is broader than in the PSAs; • termination is available for any default under the Acacia contract whereas, under the PSAs, a more narrow category of default enables termination; and • a clause in the Acacia contract provides an option for the State to issue a default notice where there has been a degradation in performance even though it does not constitute a default.
Under the PSAs, there may be situations where a failure to comply with the agreement does not constitute a Correctional Services Default according to the definition in the PSA. Any such failure would constitute a default under the Acacia contract. The Panel is of the view that Victoria’s approach (where default circumstances are set out in detail) is less advantageous to the State than the approach followed in the Acacia contract. In the Acacia contract, a default is defined more broadly as any breach by the Contractor of its obligations under the contract or of those imposed by law. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 31
3.6 THE COMPETITIVE REVIEW OF OPERATIONS
The potential exists for the Minister for Corrections to make changes to the requirements for the provision of correctional services in the private prisons when undertaking the competitive review after the first five years of operations. There are limitations on the Minister in conducting the competitive reviews, but the Panel favours calling for fresh tenders whenever the opportunity arises.
The Panel received legal advice that it is not clear whether the terms of the PSAs require the Minister to offer further terms on the basis of all of the existing requirements. Whether or not that is the case, the Panel is of the view that the Minister should seek improvements to the existing arrangements whenever the Operational Agreements come up for review.
The Investigation Panel considers that the balance between legislative provisions, and the contractual terms for the private prisons’ operation, should move more toward legislative control. This would be achieved through amending the legislation and referring to those amended provisions in the revised PSAs. Placing certain terms in legislation would set minimum requirements across the system. As these minimum requirements could not be negotiated without legislative amendment, the State would gain some protection from undesirable contract terms, although it would reduce the flexibility of the arrangements still further. In compensating for this, changes should be sought in the terms of the contracts with regard to a wider application of the default notice provision.
The Panel does not believe that the PSAs provide sufficient clarity regarding the position of the Secretary, Department of Justice in the selection of a private prison’s General Manager/Director, although each PSA includes a clause requiring the Secretary’s approval for the employment of any prospective employee by a private prison.
While these clauses give the Secretary a right to veto, they do not give the Secretary a clear right to be involved in the selection process for a new General Manager/Director. Given the vital importance of that position to the good operation of a prison, the Panel considers that the PSAs should make clear the Secretary’s powers in respect of such appointments.
Other changes to the performance measures, standards and monitoring are dealt with in subsequent chapters of this report.
Recommendations 1. The Panel recommends that the duties of care owed by the contractor to the State and to the prisoners in their care should continue in unfettered form and be protected by an appropriate amendment to the Corrections Act 1986. 2. The Panel recommends that the Minister for Corrections amend the provisions of the Prison Services Agreements to: (a) provide for the issue of a default notice in any case where there is a breach of the Contractor’s obligations under the contract or of those imposed by law; and (b) ensure that the Secretary, Department of Justice, or an officer nominated by the Secretary, is involved in the process of selection of a General Manager/Director of a private prison. 3. The Panel recommends that the Minister for Corrections amend the Prison Services Agreements relating to Fulham Correctional Centre and Port Phillip Prison to include an indemnity clause similar to clause 71 in the Prison Services Agreement for the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre. 4. The Panel recommends that the Minister for Corrections call for fresh tenders for the operation of the private prisons whenever there is an opportunity to do so.
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 33
Chapter 4 Monitoring Performance
The previous chapter outlined the Investigation Panel’s concerns regarding the limitations of contractual arrangements to secure all the outcomes the Government may require from the operation of correctional services. This section of the report examines the adequacy of current mechanisms to assess how well each prison is performing.
4.1 AN OUTCOMES-BASED APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
Each of the Prison Services Agreements with the three private prisons specifies arrangements for the management and operation of the prison, and the basis on which performance will be assessed. However, as the Auditor-General’s Report23 and the Russell review24 have previously concluded, the current performance measures do not provide a very comprehensive picture of whether or not a prison is well run.
The development of private prison contracts and associated performance monitoring arrangements took place in an environment that was very critical of traditional performance management systems. Traditional approaches were criticised because they managed by ‘driving (and measuring) inputs rather than outcomes’25 on the assumption that, by refining systems and processes, the outcome must get better.
In Victoria, the model that was adopted had a clear focus on measuring outcomes. Consistent with public sector management and contracting out principles applying in the early 1990s, the correctional management standards26 with which all operators are required to comply are deliberately outcome- and output-focused. By making the operators responsible for determining the way they provided the required services, this approach sought to encourage operators to maximise cost-effectiveness through innovation, provided that the level and quality of services was maintained or improved.
4.2 SPECIFICATION OF STANDARDS
As outlined in chapter 2, each Prison Services Agreement includes ‘Prison Management Specifications’ that reflect Victoria’s outcome-focused Correctional Policy and Management Standards.
Standards that focus exclusively on outcomes and outputs will be worded broadly, and this is true of the current standards. Although these standards may allow for variability and innovation at the local level, they are imprecise. In some instances, this lack of specificity has led to problems in areas such as differing prisoner property entitlements, where prisoners are able to have different items and/or quantities of property in different prisons. Given that prisoners may move several times during the course of their sentence, this can cause major difficulties for the prisoner and for prison management.
23 Auditor-General of Victoria, op.cit. 24 Russell, E. W., op. cit. 25 Viljoen, John 1998 ‘Strategic measurement – measuring the relevant’, paper presented at Measuring Public Sector Performance: Benchmarks of Effectiveness, Institute of Public Administration Australia, p. 2. 26 The Correctional Policy and Management Standards appear as ‘Prison Management Specifications’ at annexure T in each of the three Prison Services Agreements. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 34
There is a need for a system wide property policy to be introduced which provides some certainty to prisoners in terms of the type and amount of property they are allowed to have and the variety of foodstuffs and amenities available through prisoner shops.27
The Investigation Panel heard that the development of agreed definitions related to the Standards (such as those applying to prisoner property entitlements) ought be able to be resolved through mechanisms such as the Providers’ Forums. However, this does not appear to be the case and the Panel heard from several sources that these forums have been singularly unsuccessful in resolving such issues. This is regrettable, since the effective operation of mechanisms such as these could contribute significantly to developing the consistency of procedures and practices so important for promoting cohesiveness across the correctional system.
Moreover, many of the current output standards provide limited assistance in describing the levels of service quality desired by Government. It appears that many of the standards could be met without providing any indication about the quality of that service.
Consequently, the Investigation Panel believes that the Correctional Policy and Management Standards should be reviewed, in consultation with providers, to develop a set of standards based upon the philosophy and practice of a healthy prison.28 It is suggested that the review should: • assess the adequacy of the current standards to underpin the consistent implementation of correctional policy and services in Victoria; • identify any gaps or omissions, such as standards relating to minimising incidents of self-harm; and • investigate the extent to which relevant and meaningful performance indicators and targets can be developed that determine whether an individual standard has been met, and provide a guide to assessing the quality of service provision.
Recommendation 5. The Panel recommends that the OCSC review the Correctional Management and Policy Standards for Prisons to enhance the extent to which they support the application of consistent practices and procedures for prisoners. The review should examine the extent to which the Standards can support an evaluation of the quality of service provision.
4.3 MEASURING PERFORMANCE THROUGH SERVICE DELIVERY OUTCOMES
In addition to describing the required correctional management standards in terms of outcomes to be achieved, each of the Prison Services Agreements includes a number of Service Delivery Outcomes (SDOs) that measure performance against a range of key correctional services.
As described more fully in chapter 2 (section 2.8.2) these Service Delivery Outcomes establish specific, quantitative targets against which the performance of the Contractor and the Operator is measured. The levels of performance in relation to each of the SDOs were based upon data accumulated over the three to four years prior to the contracting out of prison services.
As many submissions to the Panel have noted, the current suite of Service Delivery Outcomes has a number of deficiencies. They have a short-term orientation, they are heavily focused on negative prisoner behaviours, are singularly quantitative in nature, and do not adequately reflect all key aspects of operator performance.
27 Submission from CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise. 28 HM Inspectorate of Prisons, Tests of a Healthy Prison, H M Inspectorate of Prisons Strategic Plan 1999-2000. The four main principles that should be used as tests of the health of establishments are: the weakest prisoners feel safe; all prisoners are treated with respect as individuals; all prisoners are busily occupied, are expected to improve themselves and given the opportunity to do so; all prisoners can strengthen links with their families and prepare for release. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 35
Quantitative measures have the advantage of generating measurable results and, as such, are enforceable through a contract. On the other hand, as the Auditor-General29 and others have noted, such measures do not necessarily lead to the achievement of desired outcomes. Perhaps more importantly, it is very difficult (if not impracticable) to measure and enforce adherence to quality outcomes in a contractual agreement. Yet qualitative measures are a very important aspect of determining how well correctional services are being provided in a given situation.
As is widely believed, this is a major problem inherent in using a contract as the preferred method of service delivery because it may be possible for a prison ‘to excel in terms of those benchmarks [Service Delivery Outcomes] and still run an appalling prison’.30
A further difficulty is that performance measures, particularly quantitative measures, often have the unfortunate impact of driving the wrong aspect of performance: ‘what you measure is what you get’. For example, it could be argued that measuring enrolments in education may simply encourage Operators to maximise prisoner enrolments without actually delivering a relevant or quality education service.
Similarly, as has been pointed out in many submissions to the Investigation Panel, there appears to be a disincentive to report incidents because the Service Delivery Outcomes (in respect of reportable incidents) are taken into account in the calculation of the Performance Linked Fee, and there are no direct penalties for underreporting incidents. ‘Most offences go unreported’ … ‘The minor offences register is used for all offences including threats to staff.’ 31
The Panel supports the recommendation of the Audit Review of Government Contracts that, wherever possible, financial or contractual penalties for underreporting should be specified in contracts.
Moreover, quantitative measures such as the SDOs often have other unintended consequences. It has been suggested that they lead prison management to implement ‘risk aversion’ practices such as a stricter security regime, or an increase in the number of prisoners having a ‘protection’ classification. Such practices, although minimising the number of reportable incidents, may not always be in the best interests of longer term prisoner management.
Group 4 is not averse to the principle of penalties being imposed for poor performance. But the consequence, when failure to meet benchmarks can result in a heavy financial penalty, is that providers are likely to concentrate on managing the benchmarks at the expense of looking for opportunities to take risk and introduce innovation.32
The other major criticism of the Service Delivery Outcomes is that they are not sufficiently comprehensive. Both the Auditor-General’s report33 and the Audit Review of Government Contracts pointed to the need for additional measures in areas such as rehabilitation, recidivism, quality and effectiveness of staff recruitment, and training and post-release employment.
29 Auditor-General of Victoria op cit 30 Haermeyer, A. 2000, Public Accounts and Estimates Committee: Police and Emergency Services and Corrections Sub-Committee; Inquiry Into 2000-01 Budget Estimates, p. 327. 31 Submission from the Community and Public Sector Union, p. 8. 32 Submission from Peter Olszak, Group 4 Securitas. 33 Auditor-General of Victoria op cit INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 36
The Investigation Panel supports the recommendations of the Audit Review of Government Contracts that a two-tiered system of performance measurement should be established in contracts, that incorporates: • a series of quantitative measures, and benchmarks against which contractual performance can be assessed; and • a series of measures, both qualitative and quantitative, which would act as general indicators of the performance of a private provider. These measures, while perhaps not directly enforceable through the contract, should be publicly disclosed to enhance accountability.34
Whatever suite of performance measures is used, it should be applied to both public and private prisons. Although there is less scope for financial penalties to be imposed on public prisons for under reporting or inadequate performance, appropriate sanctions should be developed. At a minimum these should include references to the performance failings in the public reports on the system proposed in section 4.9.
4.4 REVIEW OF SERVICE DELIVERY OUTCOMES
The Government has recognised the limitations of using Service Delivery Outcomes for evaluating the performance of private prison Contractors. For this reason, the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner engaged KPMG to assess the adequacy of the current range of Service Delivery Outcomes in measuring the quality of service delivery for key aspects of operator performance, and to recommend changes and enhancements.
In its Final Report KPMG35 concluded that, in general, the Service Delivery Outcomes are soundly based, although they lack sophistication and have varied between providers, and this has led to concerns about their objectivity and equity. The review recommended some modifications to existing SDOs and the addition of several others.
4.4.1 Service Delivery Outcomes Structure
KPMG proposed that the structure of future Service Delivery Outcomes be changed to a classification that may better reflect community expectations of correctional services: • public safety and prison security – including number of escapes and assaults on staff; • prisoner health/wellbeing – including self-mutilations, assaults, random positive drug tests, health outcomes; • prisoner rehabilitation/reparation – including education, training, and industries; and • preparation for release/re-integration into the community – including pre-release and other programs aimed at addressing offender behaviour.
The Investigation Panel supports the proposed change to the classification of Service Delivery Outcomes so that targets are more closely aligned with the Government’s objectives for the correctional services system.
4.4.2 Assessing Quality in a Contractual Framework
The KPMG report36 suggests that it would be possible to develop an index that could assess the quality of a prisoner’s general environment. This assessment might refer to prisoner and staff surveys, and be complemented by independent audits arranged by the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner.
34 Russell, E.W., op. cit., Recommendation 1.4. 35 KPMG Consulting, op. cit., p. 1. 36 ibid., p. 74. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 37
Aspects of assessment might include consideration of areas such as physical condition (excluding overcrowding), food, access to health and dental care, personal safety, hours out of cell, access to recreational resources, access to telephones and mail, visitation rights, ability to earn money via prison employment, and the nature of disciplinary sanctions and rewards.
The Panel believes that the approach it proposes to performance evaluation (described in section 4.8) will better capture the quality of a prisoner’s general environment. Consequently, it considers that the development of an index should be deferred.
4.4.3 Enhancing Current Service Delivery Outcomes
The KPMG report also makes specific recommendations to enhance the accuracy of existing SDOs in a number of areas.
In terms of escapes, the KPMG report notes that while all are significant, varying levels of responsibility can be assigned to the provider depending on the level of security at which the prisoner is being held, and the category of escape. The Panel supports the KPMG view that this SDO should be reframed to account for the prisoner’s level of security and should emphasise measurement of escapes of higher security prisoners. The measure should also differentiate between escapes from direct prison supervision, from elsewhere in the prison system, or from outside the prison system.
A reframing of this SDO would appear to address the concerns highlighted in CORE’s submission to the Panel: CORE operates four minimum-security open camps and it is escapes from these facilities that may create the impression that CORE experiences a high number of such incidents in comparison to other providers. Affording equal weighting to all escapes from prisons, regardless of the security level, creates an incorrect impression as to the relative seriousness of the incident. CORE submits that the definition of escapes requires an acknowledgment of the security level of the prison and the need to make appropriate allowances for the difference in escapes from a medium and maximum-security prison as opposed to a minimum-security prison37.
In terms of assaults, the KPMG review proposes amending the SDO relating to assaults by prisoners. The Panel supports the view that this Service Delivery Outcome be reframed to take account of the level of harm inflicted, and first versus repeat episodes of behaviour.
The Panel also supports reframing the SDO in relation to random positive drug tests to account for differences between cannaboids and opiates/other drugs. It believes the SDO could be enhanced by improved sampling methodology comprising larger samples and randomised timing.
4.4.4 Development of Additional Service Delivery Outcomes
The KPMG review proposes that consideration should be given to developing measures of key aspects of correctional practice, including: • deaths from unnatural causes; • assessment of improvements to literacy, numeracy and problem-solving skills; • provision of disease prevention and health promotion programs, and measures of their effectiveness; and • provision of pre-release programs.
37 Submission from CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 38
As a general principle, the Investigation Panel does not support the development of additional Service Delivery Outcome measures. Although these are significant issues, the Panel believes they will be better addressed in the more holistic approach to performance measurement that it has recommended in section 4.8.
4.4.5 Measures of System-Wide Performance
Although performance measurement is primarily targeted to assessing the performance of individual prison providers, the KPMG review proposes the development of a range of Service Delivery Outcomes to capture aspects of system-wide performance. These could include hours per prisoner spent in meaningful activity, measures of overcrowding, cost per prisoner, and measures of rehabilitation (for example, ex-prisoner employment) and recidivism (for example, reincarcerations).
The Panel does not dispute the importance of assessing system-wide performance but, again, it believes that the comprehensive approach to evaluating performance outlined in section 4.8 will provide a better basis for system monitoring than developing yet more Service Delivery Outcome measures.
4.4.6 Measures that Provide Incentives for Improving Performance
KPMG suggests that a number of approaches could be developed to provide performance incentives. These include a sliding scale of measurement for prisons performing within a band immediately adjacent to an absolute benchmark level (that is, 0% or 100%). This would provide an incentive to continue striving for high performance despite having failed to reach the benchmark.
The Panel broadly supports the development of such a sliding scale of measurement that would have the effect outlined above.
4.4.7 Investigating Factors that Impact upon Individual Prisons
In any service environment, a number of factors are outside the provider’s control and impact on the organisation’s capacity to meet its performance targets. Factors impacting on prison performance may include prison overcrowding, behavioural triggers (for example, sentence reviews, court appearances, time since reception), and prisoner characteristics (security ratings). KPMG proposes that a number of Service Delivery Outcomes to cover these areas require further investigation and ongoing review.
Although the Investigation Panel recognises the importance of investigating these factors, it does not support developing SDOs in these areas. It believes these issues are best addressed through its proposed performance monitoring approach (see section 4.8) and through the establishment of a program of research and analysis (see chapter 8).
4.4.8 Establishing Quantitative Models for Benchmarking Performance (and Considerations of Relief)
The KPMG report also proposes that quantitative models for benchmarking performance (and considerations of relief) be established once sufficient data on current and future Service Delivery Outcomes are available. As an interim measure, the KPMG review proposes: • the Office of the Correctional Service Commissioner (OCSC) may deduce an expected benchmark level, and commence collection of relevant information without linking to performance fee until sufficient data are available to firmly establish that benchmark level; and • where overcrowding exceeds 110% of maximum prison capacity, the Office may consider approaches from service providers to enter into negotiations regarding relief from penalties associated with failure to achieve benchmarks relating to self-mutilation/attempted suicide, INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 39
assaults on staff, and industry participation. The Office would consider negotiations and any relief on a case-by-case basis.
The Investigation Panel supports further consideration by the OCSC of ways to achieve greater flexibility in the way SDOs are assessed in the light of factors such as overcrowding.
4.4.9 Development and Implementation of Process Indicators
KPMG proposes the Office of the Correctional Service Commissioner investigate the development and implementation of process indicators that evaluate systems and procedures underlying the management of existing Service Delivery Outcomes. This would enable potential problems to be identified early, and the quality of the systems underpinning service delivery to be assessed.
These indicators would evaluate the quality and effective deployment of prison staff (staff training and development, experience, qualifications, job morale, job satisfaction, sickness, turnover), appropriate gender and ethnic diversity, and the potential to utilise Australian Quality Council recognition (or equivalent) to establish management systems that focus upon continuous quality improvement.
Measures such as those described above should form part of the more comprehensive quality reviews proposed by the Investigation Panel in section 4.8.
Given the limitations of quantitative measures in providing a comprehensive view of how well a prison is performing, the Investigation Panel, while supporting KPMG’s overall approach, does not believe the OCSC should devote substantial time and effort to reframing the SDOs. The Panel believes a different approach to performance management is required to enable a greater understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of an individual prison.
4.5 A DIFFERENT APPROACH TO PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Managing strategically means aligning all outputs, processes and inputs with the required outcomes … [and] then installing a performance management system to ensure that it works in practice.38
The Panel considers that KPMG’s proposed changes to the Service Delivery Outcomes may enhance the range of available information relating to important aspects of prison performance. Nevertheless, the Panel has concluded that neither increasing nor streamlining the number of such measures will adequately address the issue of providing comprehensive qualitative information about correctional services performance in individual prisons. Even the most thoughtful and comprehensive list of performance measures will only provide a partial picture of prison operations, especially in light of the differences between prisons in prisoner profiles, physical design and infrastructure, size and geographical location.
The Investigation Panel believes the contracts provide neither sufficient safeguard against poor operational performance, nor incentives for innovation and improved performance. It also believes a monitoring approach focused on compliance does not enable examples of good practice and innovation to be described and shared across the correctional services system.
If one’s starting point is that the prison regime should be improved, it is not just the private sector to which one is referring but also the segment run by the public sector.39
38 Viljoen, J., op. cit. p. 2. 39 Harding, Richard 1992, ‘Private Prisons in Australia’, Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No.36. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 40
As the Panel heard from many stakeholders, quantitative measures alone cannot provide a comprehensive evaluation of the overall performance of a prison, the quality of its prisoner management, or the effectiveness of programs provided to prisoners. Simply knowing that out-of-cell hours for prisoners have increased is meaningless unless this information leads to a greater understanding of what prisoners are doing during those hours. Furthermore, even if prisoners are engaged in a given number of hours of work, education, or structured programs, it is equally important to evaluate whether these hours are effective in helping prisoners become less likely to repeat their offending behaviours.
Consequently, a different approach is required that provides for an holistic evaluation of the overall health of a prison, and recognises the interdependence between different aspects of the Correctional Policy and Management Standards in achieving quality outcomes. It is the Panel’s view that KPMG’s recommendations need to be incorporated into a broader performance management framework for Victoria’s prison system. The current performance management approach needs to be strengthened to better reflect the essentially qualitative aspects of service provision in corrections, to balance compliance monitoring with a strategy to encourage the sustained delivery of quality service, and to encourage innovation.
The Panel considers that a performance management framework for prison services should: • determine compliance with legislative and contractual obligations; • enable the early identification of performance issues; • recognise innovation and best practice wherever it occurs; • encourage a culture of continuous improvement through system-wide learning; • provide the basis for regular reporting to the public on individual and system-wide performance; and • ensure an ongoing focus on prisoners and the community.
The performance management framework should be applied consistently to private and public providers, include qualitative as well as quantitative measures, and measure system-wide performance as well as that of individual prisons/Operators.
Several frameworks for managing organisational performance are commonly used across different types of industries. Based on driving strategic performance, the Australian Quality Council’s Business Excellence Framework provides a useful example of an approach to quality that could be applied to prison services. This framework could encompass quality measures such as the “tests of a healthy prison”40, developed by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons in the United Kingdom (see section 4.7.1).
Recommendations 6. The Panel recommends that the OCSC develop a model of quality service provision based on a set of characteristics of a ‘healthy prison’. 7. The Panel recommends that the OCSC refine its current performance management framework to include qualitative and quantitative measures of performance that encompass input, process, output and outcome evaluation.
40 H M Inspectorate of Prisons op cit INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 41
4.6 CURRENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR MONITORING COMPLIANCE
Obviously a structure of accountability must be established in conjunction with any privatisation initiative. Accountability in the use of public funds, the maintenance of discipline, the use of force, and other conditions of confinement, may be established through constitutional provisions, special legislation or specific contracts. An appropriate structure of accountability should include the setting of clear standards, as well as the establishment of monitoring and enforcement mechanisms.41
There is a powerful body of opinion42 ‘that a strong accountability regime is essential in corrective services and is even more essential when private providers deliver services on behalf of the government’.43
The ability to review and report on prison operations is a cornerstone of any accountability framework. Within Victoria, the Correctional Services Commissioner has a legislative responsibility for ‘monitoring performance in the provision of all correctional services to achieve the safe custody and welfare of prisoners and offenders’ (section 8A, Corrections Act).
The OCSC’s Monitoring and Review Unit undertakes the monitoring role by assessing performance, providing formal feedback to providers, advising the contract administrator of the level of adherence to contractual requirements, and advising the Minister on the provision of services, providers’ performance, and service system issues and trends. Monitoring includes assessing compliance of service delivery with legislation, government policy, Correctional Policy and Management Standards, and operating manuals.
A number of issues relating to the perceived effectiveness with which the OCSC undertakes this monitoring role were raised with the Panel, particularly the direction of the majority of monitoring effort to the three private prisons, and the apparent focus on quantitative measurement rather than qualitative evaluation. Other concerns related to the lack of strategic analysis of statistical information and the absence of any public reporting of monitoring outcomes.
4.7 ALTERNATIVE MODELS FOR MONITORING PERFORMANCE
The quality of the experience of prisoners’ confinement, even acknowledging the constraints and limitations, is the basis on which performance should be measured.44.
The Panel received a number of submissions that proposed changes to the way performance in Victoria’s prison should be monitored. Several submissions suggested that the most appropriate method would be to have an independent team of inspectors monitor key aspects of prison operations. These inspectors would report to a Victorian Inspector of Prisons similar to HM Chief Inspector of Prisons in the United Kingdom.
4.7.1 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
In 1980, the United Kingdom established an independent body to report on the condition of prisons and the treatment of prisoners. A planned inspection program, comprising a number of full inspections, is undertaken each year. A full inspection requires approximately three weeks per prison. Shorter, unannounced inspections are also carried out, which concentrate upon specific issues or examine whether previous recommendations have been carried out. Following each inspection, best practices are identified (to encourage broader application to other facilities), recommendations for
41 Chan, J. B. 1994, ‘The privatisation of punishment: a review of the key issues’ in Moyle, P (ed) Private Prisons and Police: Recent Australian Trends, ed. P. Moyle, Pluto Press, Leichhardt. 42 See, for example, Harding, R. 1997, Private Prisons and Public Accountability, Open University Press. Buckingham (UK); Moyle, P. op. cit. 43 Peach, F. J. 1999, Corrections in the Balance: A Review of Corrective Services in Queensland, Queensland Government, p. 43. 44 Submission from Victorian Council of Social Service. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 42 improvements are made, and an action plan is formulated. Areas specifically examined during full inspections include: • prisoner treatment; • quality of service delivery (including prisoner work and education); • quality of health care delivered to prisoners; • preparation for prisoner release; • physical condition and environment of the prison; • management of the prison; and • staff and prisoner morale.
The focus is upon the quality of outcomes achieved by individual prisons, and is distinguished from the quantity of outcomes that are specified in key performance indicators, operating standards and other documents (which are audited by different teams outside of the inspectorate).
The framework for inspection of quality is based upon four criteria for a ‘healthy prison’. These are:
• the weakest prisoners feel safe (minimum criteria include regular monitoring of prisoner wellbeing, an effective anti-bullying strategy, incentives to encourage responsible behaviour, rules that are explained to prisoners and fairly administered, and appropriate standards of record keeping for individual prisoners);
• treating prisoners with respect to promote self-esteem and model desirable behaviour (minimum criteria include regular monitoring of the involvement of senior management with prisoners; regular monitoring of prisoner wellbeing and offering of support as needed by staff; prisoner understanding of how to receive attention when needed, access services, and maintain links with family; prisoner access to health care services of recognised standards; and prisoner right of access to appeal decisions;
• a full, constructive and purposeful regime that provides a range of opportunities for self- improvement and staff skills that actively encourage prisoners to utilise these opportunities (minimum criteria include prisoner occupation in purposeful activity for a part of each working day, provision of a range of meaningful activity allowing for some prisoner choice, encouragement for prisoner program participation and completion, opportunities for prisoner improvement in basic literacy and numeracy, recognition of prisoner need to achieve qualifications, provision of opportunities for self-expression, and ongoing evaluation of program range and type against individual prisoner needs); and
• strengthening family links and provision of resettlement training to prevent re-offending (minimum criteria include provision of programs to reduce re-offending behaviour, provision of resettlement programs, prisoner management culture supporting programs to reduce re-offending behaviour, involvement of other agencies to provide ongoing care after release, and ensuring that suitable accommodation is arranged at release).45
The Inspectorate also points out that a ‘healthy prison’ is also vital to staff wellbeing in that employees also feel safe, are treated with respect, informed and consulted, work in an environment that demands high standards, receive good leadership, and respect their own health.
These criteria form the basis of inspection reports for each facility and are considered to represent the key criteria required for quality service delivery outcomes in correctional services in the UK.
45 HM Inspectorate of Prisons, op. cit. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 43
4.7.2 Inspector of Custodial Services (Western Australia)
This model has also been adopted in Western Australia. The Prisons Act 1981 (WA) (as amended) contains provisions for the appointment of an Inspector of Custodial Services (Inspector). The Inspector is to inspect each prison at least once every three years and at any other times, and report to the WA Parliament. The Governor appoints the Inspector who is not a public servant.
The position appears to be one of an independent auditor of prisons. The Inspector primarily reports to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the President of the Legislative Council and to the Minister. Although the Minister may exercise limited control of the Inspector, the position permits significant scope for independent investigation of prisons.
The Inspector is not empowered to deal with complaints or grievances concerning individuals.
4.7.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of Applying this Model to Victorian Prison Services
The Investigation Panel believes an inspectorate or audit team approach has some merit because it enables the more qualitative aspects of prison performance to be monitored, including the management systems established to support service delivery outcomes. In addition, this kind of approach may be useful as a means of validating any performance measures that may be developed relating to the quality of service delivery as proposed in the KPMG Report (for example, quality of prison environment, and staff training, skill and development). Combining a program of formal inspections or audits, with unannounced inspections that focus upon specific issues or the progress made since previous inspections, would maintain motivation and momentum in bringing about improvements.
This independence of the Inspector is also a strength of this approach. An inspectorate that is separate from the bureaucracy can provide an independent source of advice to the Minister regarding the overall performance of individual prisons and emerging trends and issues.
However, there are a number of difficulties with adopting an inspectorate approach to evaluating the quality of correctional service delivery. The first is resourcing an appropriately qualified team of inspectors. In the UK, a significant challenge has been to identify sufficient qualified resources to conduct a planned program of full inspections. Although the original aim was to conduct a full inspection of all prisons every five years, this has not been achieved.
The second and perhaps more important problem concerns the impact of this approach on correctional service providers. The prison system has already been subject to a number of external reviews and reports (particularly the private prisons). External reviews, like outsourcing, do not serve to enhance organisational learning. Too often the response to external reviews is a defensive rebuttal of the review team’s recommendations and allegations that ‘they got it wrong’ or didn’t fully understand the complexities of the situation. As more fully discussed in the next section, the Panel considers that, on balance, an approach that involves providers in the review process and builds on the application of a model such as the Australian Quality Council’s Business Excellence Framework is preferable at this time.
4.8 PROPOSED ARRANGEMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE MONITORING OF THE VICTORIAN PRISON SYSTEM
The Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner’s Monitoring and Review Unit has focused, to a large extent, on contractual compliance. In response to performance issues, it has devoted a significant proportion of its resources to intensive on-site monitoring at one of the private prisons. These activities have not been inappropriate given the Unit’s resourcing level, the stage of maturity of the industry, and the level of concern in relation to performance shortcomings, particularly at MWCC. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 44
Nevertheless, the Panel has formed the view that the monitoring effort needs to achieve a greater balance between compliance and quality evaluation. To achieve this, the Investigation Panel strongly believes that a quality review process should be established that includes: • ongoing compliance monitoring and data validation exercises; • regular, rotating audits of every prison, at least once every two years based on the tests of a healthy prison and covering all aspects of a prison’s operation. This would include identifying those elements that have enabled the prison to deliver positive outcomes such as better security, reduced drug use, and the quality of interaction between staff and prisoners; • random evaluations conducted without notice to assess specific aspects of prison performance; • thematic reviews across the prison system; and • surveys of staff and prisoners (such at the 360° feedback model) in relation to the operation of each prison. Survey based evidence is preferable to anecdotal evidence, and feedback should include all key stakeholder groups including staff and prisoners.
The Panel believes that much value can be gained from a program of quality reviews conducted by teams that comprise a balance of staff from across the correctional system, including: • staff from the Monitoring and Review Unit; • staff from prison operators seconded for the period of the review; and • representatives from other organisations with specific professional expertise in certain areas.
In this way, correctional staff from public and private prisons would be involved in evaluations and gain greater understanding of correctional practice in different environments. Bringing together correctional staff from across the system will help to break down the climate of suspicion that seems to exist in some organisations, and increase organisational learning across the system more generally. The Investigation Panel believes that bringing together multi-disciplinary teams composed of officers with individual expertise is important because it helps to drive organisational learning, and because this approach enables a flexible use of skills and resources.
The evaluation process would utilise information from documentary evidence, the evaluation team’s observations while at the prison, and what they were told by prisoners, staff, visitors and others (including surveys). This process would build up a detailed and comprehensive picture of all aspects of the prison’s operations. It should identify both strengths and weaknesses. The Panel believes it is as important to recognise, highlight and praise good practice as it is to point out deficiencies. The emphasis should be on reinforcing good practice and fostering a culture of continuous improvement within each prison and the prison system as a whole. This would be the major approach to assessing the quality of the service.
The Panel has considered the issue of whether the Monitoring and Review function should remain within the OCSC where it reports to the Commissioner, or whether it should be established as an independent body that reports to the Secretary of the Department of Justice or the Minister.
On the one hand, the view has been expressed that locating the monitoring function with the OCSC compromises independence, is more prone to ‘capture’, and lacks transparency in reporting. On the other hand, establishing a separate, independent monitoring function has the potential to further fragment the prison system and reduce the opportunity for operational input into policy development. It would also require resources to be duplicated within a prisons system that is comparatively small by Australian and international standards.
On balance, the Panel believes that the Monitoring and Review function should remain within the OCSC, but that accountability should be strengthened by a more rigorous and predictable monitoring regime that is supported by a schedule of full and timely public reporting of results. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 45
Although one of the advantages of this approach is seen to be the involvement of a range of staff from across the correctional system, it will also require a strengthening of the resources available in the current Monitoring and Review Unit. The Panel has been informed that considerable operational expertise exists in CORE. Transferring appropriate staff from CORE to the Commissioner’s Office would considerably enhance the OCSC’s ability to provide the program of quality performance audits proposed by the Investigation Panel. These staff would be transferred on a permanent basis to strengthen the operational expertise available within the OCSC.
As part of the process of developing and implementing the proposed program of quality performance reviews, the Investigation Panel considers that a review of current reporting requirements should be undertaken. It is important to ensure all data collected is relevant, that its provision ‘adds value’ to the system and, desirably, is useful to service providers as well as to the OCSC.
Recommendations 8. The Panel recommends that the OCSC review the system of service provider reports and audit trails to ensure only relevant data are collected, and to avoid duplication of effort. 9. The Panel recommends that the Correctional Services Commissioner ensure the Monitoring and Review Unit within the OCSC establishes a schedule of quality reviews (as described in this report) for all prisons; and that these quality reviews be undertaken by teams that include personnel seconded from providers and professionals representing other disciplines or services where appropriate, commencing from 1 January 2001. 10. The Panel recommends that the Secretary, Department of Justice identifies and oversees the transfer of appropriate staff from CORE to the OCSC to support the proposed program of quality reviews.
4.9 PUBLIC REPORTING
The people who run prisons and the staff within those prisons have a very large degree of power over the inmates of those prisons, so you have to maintain a very high degree of transparency and accountability in the way they are run.46
Many submissions to the Investigation Panel highlighted the need for more information to be publicly available about the operation of the prison system. There was a widespread perception that a climate of secrecy has led to speculation rather than insight. A number of examples were given to the Panel as illustrations of allegedly deliberate non-disclosure by the previous Government of information relating to the operation of the prison system. Other submissions simply reflected the lack of readily available, up-to-date, factual information.
4.9.1 Contractual Documentation
. . . contracts are now fully publicly available documents, with the exception of small parts of the Port Phillip Prison contract. Generally our view is that these contracts should be publicly available and able to be scrutinised.47 The Prison Services Agreements were originally regarded as commercial-in-confidence and, although executed between June 1995 and July 1996, were not published until June 1997. The published versions excluded specific details for reasons of commercial confidentiality and/or prison security (such as payment details, refurbishment schedules, cure periods, and Service Delivery Outcomes). After a protracted period of litigation, the PSAs relating to MWCC and Fulham were made available in their entirety. The PSA relating to Port Phillip remains subject to further hearings before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).
46 Haermeyer, A., op. cit., p. 334. 47 ibid., p. 334. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 46
The Operating Manuals for each of the three private prisons were originally regarded as ‘Commercial- in-Confidence’, as they were considered to comprise part of the suite of contractual documents. After a legal challenge before VCAT, the Operating Manuals (minus parts relating to security) were made available for perusal under certain conditions.
4.9.2 Performance Reporting
The Panel heard that, in the Statistical Profile: The Victorian Prison System, performance data related to incidents of prisoner self-harm were changed in the second edition. While these and other variations were explained in footnotes, a number of stakeholders neither understood nor accepted this reasoning.
The OCSC compiles daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual reports in relation to various aspects of provider and/or system performance; however, none of these reports are publicly available. The Panel understands that the OCSC is moving to release quarterly reports in relation to each private provider as a set at the end of the performance year to which they relate. While the Panel accepts the desire not to prejudice perceptions of performance by releasing quantitative information part way through a performance year, it is desirable that a method of interim reporting be established. This is especially important to counter the often negative and sometimes inaccurate perceptions of performance generated by the media.
4.9.3 Annual Report
A useful tool in assessing correctional services performance would be the annual report which monitors the prison system and must be made to the Director General annually.48
There is no current equivalent of the once lengthy annual report published by the then Victorian Office of Corrections (1984 to 1992). The information incorporated into the Department of Justice Annual Report is scant by comparison. While some of the factual information regarding prisoner profiles is now incorporated into the Statistical Profile: The Victorian Prison System, there is a need to provide a more consolidated picture of the corrections system over each 12-month period.
4.9.4 Implementation of Coronial Recommendations
Implementation plans arising from the recommendations of reports and reviews, including Coronial inquiries are not publicly available. Reports detailing the progress of implementation are similarly unavailable; therefore, a status report is included as appendix III to this report.
The Victorian Government is committed to developing Victoria as an open, transparent and accountable government. In the case of the prison system, which is traditionally perceived as a closed and secretive environment, it is crucial for public confidence and accountability that adequate information is available for public scrutiny.
Recommendation 11. The Panel recommends that the Correctional Services Commissioner: (a) develops and implements a communication strategy that includes making information available to the public about the performance of Victoria’s prisons; and (b) reports at least annually on the activities of the corrections system in Victoria.
48 Submission from Tina Millar, President, Law Institute of Victoria. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 47
Chapter 5 Staffing
It is estimated that there are currently 909 custodial staff working in the Victorian prison system. The Public Correctional Enterprise (CORE) employs 535 custodial staff. In the three private prisons, Fulham Correctional Centre (FCC) employs approximately 130, Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre (MWCC) employs 58 and Port Phillip Prison (PPP) employs approximately 186 custodial staff.49
Custodial officers work in a very demanding environment, where prisoners are often a difficult and at times dangerous group of individuals to manage. During the course of its visits to prisons, the Panel encountered many staff who approached their job with dedication, commitment and energy. It observed that the way staff interact with and manage prisoners in their care is a critical component of the overall quality of prisoner management.
This chapter discusses issues relating to the recruitment, selection and training of staff as well as staffing models currently operating in the three private prisons.
5.1 CONTEXT
Prior to 1995, the Victorian prison system operated a centralised model of recruitment and staff training. During this period, the then human resource department within the Office of Corrections (OOC) was responsible for recruitment processes for all prisons in Victoria. Training for newly accepted custodial staff was conducted as a residential program that initially consisted of 12 weeks in a training facility operated and staffed by the OOC. The course included an ‘on-the-job’ module of two weeks in the second half of the program at selected prisons.
With the introduction of private sector prison operators into Victoria in the mid-1990s, this centralised model of training was discontinued in favour of procedures requiring each of the four providers to be responsible for their own recruitment, selection and training processes. With this diversification in prison management, subsequent training at each of the private prison locations is now designed to meet individual contractual obligations in conjunction with the operator’s specific industry philosophy.
Up until recently, the role of custodial staff was centred primarily on security and containment, and their authority was reinforced by the well-defined hierarchical order established within the prison system. In essence, the job of correctional staff was to oversee the good order of the prison, keep records, and maintain a social and psychological distance from prisoners. In the early 1990s, case management (in an embryonic form) was gradually introduced throughout the prison system under the generic heading of ‘unit management’.
This was a style of managing prisoners which allowed for greater interaction amongst prisoners and prison staff in order to develop greater security and safety, as well as encouraging rehabilitation through increased and better structured program participation.50
49 Staffing figures do not include approximately 113 industry staff employed across the system in public and private prisons, nor do they include education and program staff or casual employees. 50 Submission from CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 48
This development has probably had more impact on the role of prison staff and their relationships with prisoners than any other policy decision. Such changes clearly have implications for the type of staff who are recruited, and the nature of the training provided to custodial officers.
5.2 RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION OF STAFF
Victoria’s Correctional Policy and Management Standards require that prisoners are to be managed by appropriately selected and trained staff.51 To meet the obligations outlined by this Standard, it is imperative that quality custodial staff are recruited. At present, there is no formally established recruitment standard across Victorian corrections.52
At the outset of operations, private prisons had an initial philosophy to recruit staff from non- correctional backgrounds in an effort to establish a ‘new’ prison staff culture. Generally, this bold experiment has fallen short of expectations, and the deliberate practice of recruiting large numbers of inexperienced staff has led to high staff resignation rates and associated impacts on morale. Furthermore, the failure or refusal to recruit staff made redundant from public sector prisons inevitably meant a loss of professional expertise in the corrections system. Some private operators (in particular MWCC) have reassessed past practices and, in an effort to provide balance and stability within their prisons, are now beginning to recruit experienced custodial staff.
There are substantial differences in the way the four providers currently recruit staff.53 In essence, these differences arise as a result of quite separate and distinct company policies, diversity in locations,54 and the non-uniform practice of employing casual custodial staff.
Given that a major input affecting the achievement of correctional services standards is the number, quality and effective deployment of prison staff, the importance of effective recruitment and training practices should not be underestimated.
As such, the Panel believes that the development of more uniform standards for policy and procedures for recruitment of custodial staff is desirable and may contribute to achieving greater consistency across the correctional services system. In developing uniform standards, the Panel considers that the Correctional Services Commissioner should investigate the possibility that recruitment processes be ISO-9002 accredited or eligible for such accreditation. This is particularly relevant to the private operators with contractual obligations to implement a quality framework.
Some providers currently utilise psychological testing to measure an applicant’s learning ability, temperament and suitability for custodial positions. It is suggested that when the proposed recruitment and selection standards are developed, consideration be given to a requirement that all recruitment, selection, psychological testing (if it is to be used) and assessment tools be uniformly standardised across all Victorian prison providers.
Recommendation 12. The Panel recommends that the OCSC develop a personnel manual that sets out uniform standards for recruitment policy and procedures in Victoria’s prison system.
51 OCSC 1995, op. Cit., p.56; OCSC 1996, op.cit., p.58. 52 As a result of reviews in the late 1990s, CORE established a set of standards, procedures and process maps for all recruitment activities. These are detailed in Operating Procedure No 9.1. In addition, in 1997 CORE developed medical guidelines for the recruitment of custodial staff. 53 Audit Victoria established that FCC has successfully completed the process of quality accreditation to the ISO-9002 standard, It also found that PPP bases its recruitment activity on a staff recruitment and selection policy designed by its principal organisation in Britain, and that MWCC had no recruitment policy and procedures manual. (Auditor-General of Victoria, op. cit., pp. 6–12.) 54 For example, the pool of potential recruits to Fulham Correctional Centre is limited by virtue of its location in Gippsland. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 49
5.3 CURRENT TRAINING PRACTICES IN PRIVATE SECTOR PRISONS
Each prison provider in Victoria is responsible for recruiting and training custodial staff according to the Training Package for Correctional Services (CSC 98) released in 1998. All four prison providers are registered training organisations (RTOs) and have demonstrated a commitment to the National Competencies Standards and the Certification III, IV and V programs.
It is common practice for the private prison operators to utilise the traineeship Training Packages funded through the Commonwealth Government. These packages incorporate training that takes place over two years and is subject to continuous competency assessments. By comparison, CORE has adopted a model that engages a pool of casual employees. These staff may be considered to fill any longer term vacancies as they arise, and training in Certificate III Correctional Practice is provided at that time.
The Panel believes that a traineeship model of staff training has a number of advantages. It enables new staff to receive a ‘fully rounded education’ in all aspects of the job, and it provides structure to on-the-job learning so there are no gaps at the end of the process. In addition, this model provides new staff with clear development goals and a specific time frame for the completion of competencies. It has the potential to provide skills for supervisors and so promote better supervision practices. If CORE was also to adopt this model, it would not only enable greater scrutiny of the public system’s training and assessment practices, but could also lead to a more consistent and professional prison service.
Induction training varies across all providers and ranges between two and six weeks in a combination of on- and off-the-job delivery modules. Training covers subjects that include organisational structures, legislation, operational procedures and critical incident training. Other training consists of national correctional services competency standards55 and refresher training in skills subjects such as first aid and fire awareness.
Certificate III qualification is the appropriate standard for correctional services work; very few prison officers in the private prisons have completed that qualification despite the fact that the private operators have gained the status of Registered Training Organisations, which allows them to access public funds for training delivery.56
Concerns were expressed to the Panel that the competing demands and roles of the quite separate functions of custodial services and training reduced the effectiveness of the training provided at some locations. The Panel noted, however, that training organisations were in a process of transition as they moved from providing training and assessment in the existing curriculum (that was specific to their organisation) to providing training and assessment in units of competency from the Training Package.57
Interviews with management, correctional staff and prisoners highlighted the seemingly universal lack of confidence and credibility among key stakeholders regarding the adequacy of current training provided to custodial officers.
55 The term ‘competency’ can be defined as the specification of knowledge and skills and their application in the workplace. As such, competency has five main dimensions: task skills (the ability to do a task), task management (the ability to undertake multiple tasks), contingency management (the ability to deal with problems arising), job role environment skills (the ability to undertake these tasks to the expectations of others), and transferability (the ability to undertake these tasks to other contexts and situations). 56 Submission from the Community and Public Sector Union. 57 The Training Package determines the condition, requirements and recognition of training and assessment of competency across the correctional services system. The Training Package is viewed as an important part of the system’s strategy to develop a work culture that focuses on quality service, responsiveness to changing public expectations, and higher levels of public accountability. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 50
5.3.1 Audit of Prisons as Training Organisations
The Office of Post Compulsory Education, Training and Employment (Office of PETE) undertook an audit and review of training of all Victorian corrections locations certified as RTOs. The audit/review was designed to assess the adequacy of training systems in place, the format of delivery at each of the locations, and the appropriateness of resources utilised and facilities provided.58 The review identified inconsistencies between all four providers and, as a consequence of these investigations, decided to temporarily suspend one provider’s registration to deliver training to its staff.
The Office of PETE audit was critical of private prison operators in a number of areas specifically related to training policies and programs and, in particular, their inability to provide evidence of a strategic approach to training. One of the major challenges highlighted by the audit review is the need to separate the business of custodial services from that of a RTO. There is a need to clearly recognise and define the roles and functions of a RTO. These training and assessment functions in turn need to be clearly delineated from the roles and functions of the human resources departments of the prisons.59
The report went on to comment on the quality assurance and continuous improvement mechanisms within the training and assessment systems adopted by the prison operators. At each site the general impression was that confusion exists about what is required to establish and manage a training and assessment system. In addition, the role of the RTO becomes blurred with the functions of the prison organisation. As a prison organisation the system has well documented codes of practice, procedures, forms, strategic plans, etc. However, in general the RTO arm of the organisation does not mirror this practice.60
The audit/review also raised concerns about the level of knowledge by the training organisations regarding the Training Package: Of concern throughout the audit/review process was the distinct lack of awareness or knowledge of the Training Package and related materials. A number of training and assessing personnel were not familiar with the Training Package and its contents (Qualifications, Assessment Guidelines and units of Competency). In fact, the structure of a unit of competency and how it relates to training and assessment was frequently not understood. 61
The investigations of the Panel confirmed the audit findings regarding the lack of understanding across Victoria’s prisons about what constitutes an effective assessment instrument. In addition, the lack of knowledge regarding the notion of competency and its dimensions, coupled with the lack of understanding of the construction of a unit of competency and the ability to transfer this to an effective training instrument, was evident.
Clearly, current training regimes are not standardised across the different prison locations or prison providers. This means there is often wide variation in the supervision and general day-to-day handling of prisoners moving throughout the system. Although there is a need for prisons to have a degree of operational flexibility, it is equally important that there be consistency in staff training and the standards of competence expected of individual custodial officers across the Victorian prison system.
58 Formerly known as the Office of Training and Further Education (OTFE). 59 Bateman, A. & King, E. 1998, Audit and Review of Training within Correctional Services/Registered Training Organisations within the State of Victoria, Office of Training and Further Education, Melbourne. 60 ibid., p. 6. 61 ibid., p. 5. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 51
5.3.2 Assessment of Competence
It is essential that all training programs based on the acquisition of specific competencies ensure there is a rigorous and effective process for assessing whether a trainee has achieved the required standard of competence. As such, assessments of custodial staff demand that individuals demonstrate competence in all dimensions of task skills, management and job skills.
Given that a number of audits and reviews have established that the quality of the assessment instruments utilised by the private sector prisons is inconsistent, the Panel believes these assessment instruments should be standardised to enable uniform assessment procedures and outcomes. In relation to on-the-job training, it is equally important that this process not evolve into little more than a ‘paper chase’ for relevant documents rather than a demonstration of actual competence.
The Panel considers the Correctional Services Commissioner should investigate the potential for establishing a small team of well-trained assessors who would develop standardised assessment procedures and materials, and undertake assessments of competence across all providers of prison services. This approach has the potential to introduce a greater level of consistency into the training of correctional staff while still enabling material to be customised to meet individual provider needs.
The Panel acknowledges that on-the-job training is a legitimate and efficient strategy for learning and maintaining competencies. As a means to achieving satisfactory outcomes, it is vital that the prison- based RTO implement an individualised training plan for each staff member. Such a plan should include units of competency to be achieved, timelines for achieving competencies, frameworks of learning, and assessment processes.
Furthermore, to ensure the success of on-the-job training, it will be necessary for the prison-based RTOs to make greater use of learning and assessment strategies such as job rotation, mentoring, ‘buddy system’, peer review, and cumulative assessments.
Recommendations 13. The Panel recommends that the Correctional Services Commissioner support the implementation of the traineeship model across all Victorian prison providers. 14. The Panel recommends that the OCSC, in consultation with prison operators, develop criteria and standards for assessment of training.
5.4 PROMOTING LEADERSHIP IN VICTORIA’S PRISON SYSTEM
Prisons need strong leadership and a degree of stability. The best Governors have a vision for their establishment which informs both policy and practice and which they are able to communicate effectively to other staff.62
The importance of a strong and committed team of managers who show leadership and have the courage to make difficult decisions is well documented in correctional management literature. This is supported by the Investigation Panel’s observations. It found many problems at MWCC, for example, appeared to be linked to instability in leadership (MWCC has had four general managers since it commenced operations) and management deficiencies, including a failure to implement structures and processes that facilitate regular communication between prisoners, custodial officers and senior managers.
62 Home Office 2000, Modernising the Management of the Prison Service: An independent report by the targeted performance initiative working group chaired by Lord Laming of Tewin CBE, p. 11. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 52
As is the case in other organisations, effective leadership in a prison environment begins with the general manager, but the support of a competent and able team of managers below them is also critical. These managers must not only be aware of what is going on in their areas of responsibility, but they must also be prepared to make decisions that resolve problems and report on any issues that cannot be immediately settled.
As was noted in section 4.2, the use of targets associated with Service Delivery Outcomes (SDOs) has impacted on management practices. The approach appears to be one of risk-aversion rather than risk management. This is perhaps not surprising given the negative consequences that accompany failure to achieve a prison’s required SDOs. Nor are such practices confined to the Victorian prison system. Both the Peach review of corrections in Queensland63 and the Laming Review64 of the British public prison system’s operations refer to the paralysing ‘blame culture’ that characterises the correctional services system. Changing this culture requires, among other things, training managers in how to assess and manage risk in a complex environment.
Good leadership and management do not occur in a vacuum. One of the distinguishing features of good managers is their ability to articulate and reflect a clear sense of direction that encompasses the outcomes to be achieved and the values that should underpin the work and inform the nature of the relationships between staff and prisoners.
The Panel believes that the Office of the Correctional Service Commissioner (OCSC) has a key role to play in ensuring a coherent strategic vision for the prison system is widely disseminated. Custodial staff should have access to effective training programs to assist them to support the Government’s vision for the prison system, and to provide for their ongoing professional development and longer term career needs.
5.4.1 Professional Development and Management Training
Across the Victorian prison system, there is currently no formal education or management training requirement a staff member must meet to be promoted. This has not always been the case. For example, up until the early 1990s, the then Office of Corrections required the attainment of a mandatory qualification based on successful completion of an internal training package before an employee was eligible for promotion. Different qualifications based on a higher level of training and knowledge were required for each level of the lower promotional stages. In the absence of structured and formal training regimes, promotions for custodial positions are now generally based on standard interview practice and assessment processes.
Since there is little or no expectation within the industry of formal education in management or supervisory training, selection for management positions or succession planning has revolved around correctional staff’s experience. This has led to good ‘front-line’ staff finding their way into senior or management positions, frequently without the requisite skills or necessary knowledge to meet the position’s responsibilities.
The Panel heard that, until recently, prison providers have tended to encourage staff to undertake training in their own time, or to participate in ad hoc self-development programs.
The Panel considers that it is imperative that leadership training linked with good ‘succession planning’ takes place across Victorian prisons. This requires a greater focus on the ongoing training and career development needs of staff in the correctional services system. To achieve this, management training could be promoted and implemented. Such training could include Certificate III in Frontline Management; Certificate IV in Frontline Management; Certificate IV in Management Skills; and Diploma in Management.
63 Peach, FJ 1999, Corrections in the Balance: A Review of Corrective Services in Queensland. Queensland Government. 64 ibid., p. 25. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 53
The Panel received information65 regarding a Diploma in Criminology (Prison Studies). It provides senior prison officers with expertise in strategic leadership, criminal justice and the legal context of prisons, understanding how prisons work, and criminal behaviour. This one-year, part-time course was developed by HM Prison Services and Cambridge Institute of Criminology and is available through the Cambridge University Board of Continuing Education. The Panel received advice from the Vice-Chancellor, Victoria University of Technology (VUT) that, following its recent agreement with the Cambridge University Board of Continuing Education, the Board would be willing to adapt such a course for teaching at VUT’s city campus. The Panel strongly supports further investigation of this proposal.
The Panel asked Open Learning Australia (OLA) to look at a model to create a professional career path for the corrections industry. Such a model would provide links to a broad range of existing training/educational programs, and enable considerable flexibility of delivery, such as online materials supported by workplace or local mentors. This proposal is outlined in appendix IV.
The Panel believes there is merit in further considering the feasibility of the OLA proposal. It proposes that a Custodial Officer Education and Training Advisory Committee be established for the purpose of considering the OLA, VUT and other proposals for improving training and further education opportunities in correctional services.
Recommendations 15. The Panel recommends that the OCSC establish a Custodial Officer Education and Training Advisory Committee, consisting of a management and a training representative from each prison provider, meet at least twice each year to assess, review and make recommendations on all training issues. 16. The Panel recommends that the proposed Custodial Officer Education and Training Advisory Committee investigate the feasibility of requiring that staff promoted to management positions have as a basic qualification a Diploma in Correctional Administration/Frontline Management or Diploma in Criminology (Prison Studies) or equivalent, by the year 2005.
5.5 STAFFING MODELS
This section of the report addresses the Investigation Panel’s terms of reference in relation to the adequacy of current staffing models at the three private prisons.
All private providers currently utilise 12-hour shifts for supervisory, custodial and security functions. The Panel heard that these 12-hour shift patterns are well received by staff because they lead to fewer days at work, less travel and the opportunity to pursue other interests.
Providers expressed some concerns with the model of 12-hour shifts. These included the difficulties in maintaining continuity of staff, work performance leading to absenteeism, roster manipulation, boredom and fatigue. The 12-hour shift is linked to the out-of-cell hours requirements and, on that basis, appears to be cost effective.
In real terms, both Port Phillip and MWCC have an operational four-level custodial structure that results in the base-grade custodial officers sharing responsibility for a unit’s supervision. Fulham prison has a designated officer-in-charge of each unit in addition to base-grade positions because it recognises that the lack of a clearly identified ‘leader’ within a unit can result in a situation where no one is willing to take command, and this may create an atmosphere of uncertainty and hesitancy.
Port Phillip Prison has proposed the introduction of a unit manager at the supervisory level for each unit in the prison.
65 Submission from Professor Jarlath Ronayne, Vice-Chancellor, Victoria University of Technology. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 54
5.5.1 Staffing Arrangements at Port Phillip Prison
Custodial staff numbers at Port Phillip Prison are currently estimated at 186; this is an increase of 39 full-time staff since the prison opened. This has occurred because the original proposal was for one correctional officer per unit, and this has been increased to two.
Group 4 Correctional Services has entered into an agreement with the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) to maintain a minimum staffing level. This agreement was developed jointly by the CPSU and Group 4 Correctional Services to address Occupational Health and Safety issues that resulted from an incident earlier this year. The Panel was informed that the initiative taken to introduce a formal minimum staffing model and the increase of staff numbers in accommodation units has been at considerable cost to the operator.
Under this agreement, daily staffing levels are monitored in accordance with the agreed disposition numbers for each shift. Absences are covered by redeploying staff for up to two hours while replacement staff are obtained. Any units staffed below the agreed staffing profile will remain locked down until fully staffed in accordance with the agreement.
The prison operates its roster on a 12-hour shift/76-hour fortnight. The Panel was informed that this model was not without its problems because rostering arrangements mean custodial staff may be absent from the prison for a week or more after completing a continuous shift of duty. This results in issues of continuity for prisoner management due to long absences of individual custodial staff from their unit. It also leads to some problems in relation to management’s capacity to address issues quickly with individual staff members because it may be some time before the custodial officer is again on duty at the prison.
Port Phillip Prison has also developed a new organisational structure to address the current demands placed on the prison because of increased prisoner numbers. This new structure is designed to ensure that there is a unit manager in charge of each accommodation unit. This structure is yet to be approved through contractual negotiations.
In the Panel’s view, the staffing model used at Port Phillip appeared to meet the prison’s needs.
5.5.2 Staffing Arrangements at Fulham Correctional Centre
At Fulham Correctional Centre, the number of custodial staff has been increased by two positions to 130 positions because of increased prisoner numbers. The introduction of the methadone drug program also resulted in one additional custodial position.
Like Port Phillip, Fulham now operates a 12-hour roster. Management informed the Panel that 12- hour shifts do not affect absenteeism or work performance. The 12-hour shifts (which replaced the original 8-hour shifts) resulted from the enterprise bargaining process and have reduced the number of supervisor positions required.
There is not a minimum staffing level set at Fulham, although it is a practice to have a minimum of three staff for the unlock and lockup of each accommodation unit.
Short-term absenteeism is covered only after management considers it necessary and authorises coverage. When coverage is authorised, overtime is used in the first instance, then casuals are brought on. Approximately 2% of the operational budget per month is allocated for overtime.
In the Panel’s view, the staffing model used at Fulham appeared to meet the prison’s needs. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 55
5.5.3 Staffing Arrangements at Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre
MWCC’s organisational structure is relatively flat. There are four levels of staff ranging from general manager to base-grade custodial officer.
When vacancies occur due to absences of custodial staff, a hierarchy of action is taken. It commences with calling in casuals, using overtime and redeploying staff. If staff are unable to be obtained, the affected unit is locked down. The lock down option appears to be used frequently and the Panel heard concerns that this has become an accepted management practice.
The use of casuals at the Metropolitan Women’s prison has been extensive and ongoing due to a high number of permanent vacancies. This has been exacerbated by the opening of a new 16-bed unit that requires two additional staff each day.
It is estimated that permanent custodial staff numbers are currently 58 (down from 67 when the prison commenced operation in 1996). Twelve-hour shifts are worked over an 84-hour fortnight. Lockdowns due to staff shortages occurred on 53 days of a 109-day period reviewed (from 12 May 2000 to 28 August 2000). Staff are also not relieved when they take their authorised 30-minute breaks and these also result in units being locked down.
In the Panel’s view, the staffing arrangements at MWCC did not appear to adequately meet the prison’s needs. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 57
Chapter 6 Managing Prisons and Prisoners
‘Security’ refers to the obligation of the Prison Service to prevent prisoners escaping. ‘Control’ deals with the obligation of the Prison Service to prevent prisoners being disruptive. ‘Justice’ refers to the obligations of the Prison Service to treat prisoners with humanity and fairness and to prepare them for their return to the community in a way which makes it less likely that they will reoffend. 1
The way prisoners are managed is the foundation of good correctional practice. The proper classification and placement of a prisoner during their period of incarceration, the progressive case management of individual prisoners, and prisoners’ participation in relevant programs all represent key avenues for prisoner rehabilitation.
According to the Victorian Correctional Policy and Management Standards, prisoner management effectively: (a) controls and supervises prisoners in a humane and just manner while maximising the protection of the community; (b) provides for the personal safety of staff and prisoners through a prison environment that aims to protect the physical and emotional wellbeing of individuals; (c) encourages prisoners to develop responsibility for their actions and to develop ethical values that reinforce law-abiding and non-violent participation in the community; and (d) provides prisoners with opportunities for rehabilitation.2
Prisoner management commences at an offender’s point of entry into the Victorian prison system and extends through to the prisoner’s completion of their sentence and exit from the system.
This section of the report examines a number of key aspects of prisoner management and makes recommendations for changes aimed at improving the effectiveness of correctional programs, and promoting cohesiveness across the correctional services system.
6.1 INDIVIDUALISED PRISONER MANAGEMENT
In the Victorian prison system, the process of ‘case management’ includes assessing a prisoner’s needs; identifying the appropriate prisoner treatment goals and the steps required to achieve these goals; providing links, advocacy and liaison with external services; and monitoring and reviewing treatment.
Ideally, the case management process should provide a framework for development and implementation of risk/needs-based interventions and their ongoing coordination for each prisoner.
6.1.1 Individual Management Plans
Individual Management Plans (IMPs) are an integral part of the day-to-day management of prisoners in Victoria. They are the blueprint that articulates the needs, goals and rehabilitation strategies for each prisoner while they are in custody.
1 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons “Suicide is Everyone’s Concern”. A Thematic Review by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons. 2 OCSC 1995, op. cit., p.17; and OCSC 1996, op. Cit., p.17. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 58
Individual Management Plans were introduced into Victorian prisons, in conjunction with the principles of unit management, in the early 1990s. These have been established and used with varying degrees of success, depending on the extent of staff training and understanding of their purpose at the time of implementation.
The creation of an Individual Management Plan at the commencement of a prison term must reflect the prisoner’s special needs and characteristics. Therefore, prison operators have the important responsibility of ensuring all information pertaining to a prisoner’s individual needs and progress in achieving rehabilitation goals during the prison term is systematically recorded on Individual Management Plan files. The Service Delivery Outcomes (SDOs) for each prison operator under the contractual agreements require all Individual Management Plans to be kept up to date at all times. This too is subject to periodic monitoring by the Commissioner’s Office.
Private prison operators cater for individual case management planning by using the format contained within Individual Management Plans. The Auditor-General’s Report3 assessed the quality of Individual Management Plans and identified a number of shortcomings. The report indicated that the structure of the IMP files does not lend itself to efficient access to information, and that the structure and content requirement of Individual Management Plans should be reviewed. The report also noted some examples of initiatives in this area; for example, Fulham Correctional Centre has introduced a checklist to be completed by the manager of each section of the prison as a control measure for ensuring the prisoner’s IMP adequately addresses all identified rehabilitation needs.
The Panel noted that although the Commissioner’s Office has established Minimum Standards for Transfer for IMP files, there are continuing concerns regarding instances where information critical to effective management of prisoners has not been recorded. This is discussed further in section 6.2.
6.1.2 Case Management
Each prison provider is responsible for the individual case management of prisoners received at the respective prison locations. This means each prisoner should have an individualised plan that is based on assessed need and subject to regular progress reviews and amendment as required. Accordingly, the prison provider must establish mechanisms to ensure all relevant information is collected and communicated to custodial and program staff so the prisoner is appropriately managed.
Evidence is mixed as to the effectiveness of case management systems in Victorian prisons, even though Individual Management Plans are maintained, to varying degrees, for every prisoner in the system. At all prison locations, these files are maintained by a nominated case officer (a member of the custodial staff). As the Victorian Correctional Services Task Force noted, case management has never been clearly defined or standardised within prisons. To this extent, ‘case management is a general facet of prisoner management which providers are expected to undertake within their institutions. Accordingly providers approach case management from various perspectives.’4
Over many years, there have been a number of efforts to find a suitable model of case management for the Victorian corrections system. To date, no effective or standardised model has yet been identified that meets the approval of all prison providers. In recent times, CORE has been developing a model involving multi-disciplinary teams within prisons to conduct case conferencing for all prisoners. This model relies on professionally trained staff to deliver case management to all prisoners, and this has resource implications.
6.1.3 Differentiated Case Management
The premise that all prisoners are not the same and do not make the same demands on prison resources and programs is accepted intuitively, but it is not broadly applied in practice across the
3 Auditor-General of Victoria, op. cit. 4 ibid., p. 129. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 59 corrections system. Differentiated Case Management (DCM) is a means of approaching the management of prisoners with different support requirements.
The Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner (OCSC) is currently developing a model framework for Differentiated Case Management that identifies the greatest needs of prisoners and targets interventions or programs accordingly.5
The DCM model is predicated on the development of validated risk/needs assessment instruments as a basis for effective intervention with offenders at risk of reoffending. As ‘all prisoners are not the same, their risks and needs do not make the same demands … and they require different levels of intervention’,6 the Differentiated Case Management approach targets more intensive programs to high-risk offenders, while providing minimal intervention to those prisoners of lower risk. The model is based on an assessment of the criminogenic needs of prisoners. This assessment emphasises the importance of distinguishing between factors that contribute directly to offending behaviour (such as drug dependency and poor cognitive skills), and those with a less direct relationship (such as depression and low self-esteem). This approach also assumes that “different levels of intervention require different standards of quality control and evaluation.”7
DCM can be used with any type of case assignment system as long as it permits early and valid case screening of prisoners. It has the potential to maximise use of limited resources by targeting high-risk offenders for the most intensive interventions.
Accordingly, there are two major goals of Differentiated Case Management: • timely and just disposition of all cases consistent with their risks and needs; and • improved use of resources by tailoring interventions to risks and needs.
Implementation of the DCM approach requires the development of multiple pathways and programs to address prisoners’ needs. Programs are differentiated on the basis of assessed risk and need. The model currently proposed provides three program ‘tracks’: Level 1, Basic (low risk/low needs); Level 2, Intermediate (moderate risk/moderate needs); and Level 3, Intensive (high risk/high needs).
Under this approach, each prisoner is screened shortly after reception so their priority needs can be identified, and they can be assigned to the appropriate program pathway or track according to defined criteria. Continuous monitoring of case progress within each track is necessary to ensure adherence to the specific requirements and timeframes of the particular program pathway. It also means the prisoner can be reassigned to a different level if changes in levels of risks or needs are identified.
However, full implementation of the DCM model requires the development of valid and reliable ‘risk of reoffending and criminogenic needs’ assessment tools (general and specific) for case differentiation. It also requires the development of two streams of sex offender programs (intensive and moderate), with emphasis on the latter being a stand-alone program that can be delivered in a number of prisons. Similarly, two streams of violent offender programs (intensive and moderate); two streams of substance abuse programs (intensive and moderate) with an emphasis on the moderate level program being implemented in a number of prisons; and an intensive, evidence-based literacy and numeracy program, responsive to the learning styles of offenders, will be required.
The Panel supports this approach to case management. It notes that the program’s implementation is supported by a number of ‘best practice’ principles, including the principle of evaluation (that programs must have mechanisms in place to evaluate their impact on reoffending rates).
5 Dunne, Felicity 2000, A Framework for Reducing Reoffending: Differentiated Case Management in Victorian Corrections. 6 ibid. 7 ibid. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 60
Recommendation 1. The Panel recommends that the OCSC model of Differentiated Case Management be introduced across all levels of prison operation.
6.2 RECORDS AND INFORMATION TRANSFER
Previous reports have identified problems with transferring information between prisons, and with the comprehensiveness and accuracy of prisoner records. This still appears to be the case.
The Panel was provided with examples of a number of recent instances where critical information about prisoners was not recorded on files. It was informed that prisoners sometimes arrive at prisons without IMP files (for up to a week)8 and, even when the file arrives, there may be virtually no case notes. IMP files are often ‘useless’ and important information may be missing, such as incident reports. The Panel heard of examples of prisoners having a Suicidal Alert on their Prisoner Information Management System9 Prisoner Profile but no file notes or incident report could be found, despite the efforts of prison staff in contacting the case officer at the previous prison. In other cases, contradictory information was contained within the prisoner’s IMP.
The matter of medical records that are not included in the IMP file remains problematic. The Panel was told of incidents where the medical condition of a prisoner was not conveyed to custodial staff at the new receiving prison because of confidentiality. It appears that the transfer of health information across the system is still a problem, although it is not as great since the common medical record was introduced.
The Panel considers that ongoing staff training and support is critical in addressing these issues. This opinion is supported by a recent review of the level of correctional staff awareness regarding the information available on the Prisoner Information Management System (PIMS) that may be useful in identifying and reducing the risk of suicide/self-harm in individual prisoners.10 The review did not identify any formal PIMS refresher training programs in Victorian prisons, and found that only a few prisons provided formal PIMS training for new recruits.
6.2.1 Improving Records Management Through the Application of Information Technology
It has been suggested that technological innovations in corrections should provide real gains for prison operators in relation to prisoner management; however, these gains have not yet been realised. There is considerable scope for information technology to address the limitations of the electronic system currently in use (that is, PIMS), and to promote access to additional computer technology, but the costs and time involved in developing new technological applications for the corrections system appear to be considerable.
The Department of Justice has previously identified the importance of streamlining how information is currently managed in Victoria’s criminal justice system. This led to the Criminal Justice Enhancement Program (CJEP) being established in early 1999. The CJEP’s vision is to develop a ‘shared criminal justice environment’ in which agencies cooperate in exchanging key information for which they have common use. CJEP will enable authorised users to access and update information continuously throughout the lifecycle of a person’s exposure to the criminal justice system.
The Panel has been advised that the draft CJEP systems requirements study has now been distributed to stakeholders. However, concerns persist across the Department in relation to the ability of the proposed system to deliver the level of functionality required, and within the timeframe proposed (commencing May 2001 to be fully operational by October 2001). In the meantime, it is worrying
8 Office of Correctional Service Commissioner 2000, Development of PIMS Awareness Training Package, Progress Report. 9 The Prisoner Information Management System, or PIMS, is the central computer-based system that records operational information relating to all prisoners. 10 Office of Correctional Service Commissioner 2000, op.cit. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 61 that important developmental work on existing systems, including the establishment of an electronic prisoner IMP file, continues to be deferred.
The Correctional Services Commissioner’s recent review of PIMS awareness11 has highlighted a number of issues that will need to be addressed prior to implementing the CJEP system. These include the variable access to PIMS across the prison system, the lack of sufficient computer terminals to facilitate PIMS access, and the lack of computer skills reported by many staff. The review found many staff do not access the range of important information available in the current PIMS system but, even when they do, the information is often not kept up to date and/or not effectively utilised. Since there is substantial variation between prisons in the degree to which PIMS information is used, this compounds problems associated with prisoner movement leading to frequent instances of discrepancies between what is entered on the PIMS system and what is contained in a prisoner’s IMP file.
It has been suggested that PIMS would be more effective if the IMP file was electronically stored within PIMS. There is a great deal of inefficiency in information gathering, with triplication in Reception, Unit and Social History assessments. ‘Within two days, the prisoner can be asked the same question three times.’
Recommendation 2. The Panel recommends that the OCSC undertake an early review of the structure and content of prisoners’ Individual Management Plan files for the purpose of establishing a revised file management framework. This should include consideration of electronically automating the system of recording, maintaining and transferring prisoner records.
6.3 WORK, EDUCATION AND PROGRAMS
6.3.1 The ‘Structured Day’
According to the Correctional Policy and Minimum Standards established by the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner, all prison operators must provide a schedule that addresses the wide range of needs within the prisoner population.
The prison operator must develop a schedule for mainstream prisoners which: • provides regimes to meet the needs of the diverse prisoner groups at the prison; • provides all prisoners with a minimum of 12 hours out of their cells each day; • provides work for sentenced prisoners for at least six hours per day, 10 days per fortnight; • enables all prisoners to participate in a minimum of four hours accredited education/training each week; • maximises involvement in programs and activities; and • accounts for the needs of specific prisoner groups.
For prisoners placed in a management or security unit pending investigation into an alleged offence, the prison operator must provide a regime that includes a minimum of eight hours out of cell time and four hours of meaningful work and/or program activity per day. For those prisoners placed in a management or security unit to serve a period of loss of privileges, the prison operator must provide a regime that includes a minimum of two hours out of cell time per day.
11 ibid. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 62
Since 1996, the number of hours per day that each prisoner spends out of their cell has averaged a little under 12. These hours reflect each prison’s distinctive function and prisoner profile. For example, out-of-cell hours for 1998–99 ranged widely from 8.8 hours at the Melbourne Assessment Prison to 16 hours at the Langi Kal Kal Prison.
For some time, the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre (MWCC) has been locking down accommodation units so custodial staff can be relocated to other duties. This reduces the amount of time women prisoners are out of their cells and prevents attendance at organised programs or the delivery of those programs within units.
As the Panel was informed, however, it is vital that the hours prisoners spend out of cells are used effectively. It appears to be less important that prisoners spend a specified number of hours in, say, work or education, than that the activities of prisoners are targeted as closely as possible to their individual needs as identified in Individual Management Plans. A widely understood principle in the delivery of any human service is that ‘one size does not fit all’. Achieving work-related skills may be less important for some prisoners than participating in programs that address basic literacy and numeracy deficiencies.
Across providers, the majority of the prisoners’ current activities are devoted to allocated work, vocational training, full-time education or other programs. Time out of the working day for participation in approved programs, including education, is regulated through local review and assessment committees.
Approved programs aim to prepare prisoners to re-enter society. These programs may: • provide education and training, develop integration skills (living skills, social skills), and prepare prisoners for release (the Custodial Community Permit Program (CCPP) and Community Integration Program (CIP)); and • seek to reduce offending behaviour; for example, drug and alcohol education and treatment programs, sex offender treatment or management programs, violent offender treatment programs and one-on-one counselling sessions.
The importance of prisoners being involved in a structured program of daily activities is clearly essential for the individual prisoner’s wellbeing and the prison’s management. Nevertheless, the Panel believes there should be a greater focus on linking daily activities with the identified needs of prisoners (possibly as outlined in the differentiated case management model referred too in section 6.1.3) rather than ensuring prisoners spend a specified number of hours in particular activities. As such, the Panel sees merit in the OCSC amending the current schedules to enable a more flexible mix of work, education and other structured programs.
6.3.2 Prison Industries
The rationale behind prison industries is to provide prisoners with the opportunities to develop the necessary skills for effective participation in the labour market after their release.
The Victorian Correctional Policy and Management Standards requires all prison operators to provide prison industries so all sentenced prisoners can work. Prisoners are permitted to work in service areas such as the kitchen, laundry, cleaning, maintenance, and gardening. Prison operators are required to enable prisoners to participate in accredited training associated with their work. It is also stipulated that the nature of the work should assist prisoners to gain skills that will enhance their chances of employment on release.
As outlined in section 2.11.1, work provided in prison industries must also be consistent with the annual Corrections Industry Training Plan. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 63
The Panel received a submission from the Victorian Prison Industries Advisory Committee that stated: Prison Industries give many prisoners work like experience and training, irrespective of the type of industry involved. They also contribute significantly to the good working order of the prisons12
That Committee took the view: that whilst prison and service industries play an important role in all prisons, there are a number of negative and often unavoidable pressures. These include a lack of knowledge of the skills and training of incoming prisoners, the difficulties inherent in sharing what information there is across all prisons, the impediments to coherent work experience caused by extensive prisoner movement, the length of many sentences, the interruptions caused by visits, health and legal requirements and the sometimes competing demands of other programs and education.13
Industry Participation Rates of Prisons The Service Delivery Outcome for this area of prison operations is expressed as the number of prisoners on the last working day of the month who are employed full time (that is, more than six hours), or engaged in full-time education or programs, expressed as a percentage of the daily actual prisoners available for work/study. All private prison operators are currently meeting their Service Delivery Outcomes in this area.
The KPMG review noted a concern that the definition may be applied variably between the prisons, especially the definition of ‘available to work’. However, it noted that prisons were more concerned with providing appropriate work for prisoners to undertake.14
The Panel also heard from providers regarding the difficulty in developing arrangements with appropriate industries, particularly in rural areas. Providers indicated that domestic services for the prison are a substantial component of the work experience provided.
Accredited TAFE training at the three private prison locations appears to be well coordinated within the industry sectors. This process maximises the time TAFE teachers have with individual prisoners and utilises a range of on-the-job training skills, competency-based training and personal development requirements. The Panel heard that tension still exists between the industry and education sectors at each prison due to their respective interests in maximising attendance and production outputs. Nevertheless, the Panel came across a number of examples of cooperation and communication between the two sectors that address this situation.
In the prison environment, the importance of work for prisoners should not be underestimated. It provides the structure for good order and security. Custodial staff acknowledge that it allows prisoners to be occupied constructively, while at the same time it provides opportunities for prisoners to gain qualifications. It is important that such work should be meaningful and, given the difficulties in providing appropriate work for prisoners, it may be timely for the OCSC to review the requirement that all prisoners work six hours per day. The Panel is of the view that enabling prisoners to participate in other structured programs, such as those targeted to meet their identified criminogenic needs, may be equally valuable.
Recommendation 3. The Panel recommends that the OCSC amend current schedules within the context of the structured day to enable a more flexible mix of work, education and other structured programs based on the needs of the prisoner, as identified in their Individual Management Plan.
12 Submission from Victorian Prison Industries Advisory Committee. 13 ibid. 14 KPMG Consulting 2000, op. cit., p. 48. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 64
6.3.3 Education and Training
For the past 20 years, international research has demonstrated that education and training can have positive effects on rehabilitation of prisoners and recidivism rates.
The Panel noted that the education programs for prisoners focus primarily on acquiring labour-market skills that are linked as far as possible to the industry’s availability at the prison. This reflects the specification for prisoner education that requires prisoners be provided with not less than an average of four student contact hours of accredited education and training per week. Moreover, it is specified that such training should provide opportunities for all prisoners to develop skills necessary for effective participation in the labour market after release.
Access to skill development and qualifications as a New Apprentice is currently denied to prisoners in Victoria thus prohibiting participation in one of the Australian Recognition Framework’s major learning pathways.15
The Planning Guide for Providers of Training and Further Education in Victoria 2000-2002 notes that the Corrections Industry Training Board is pursuing initiatives within the corrections industry in relation to traineeships, and that discussions are being held to identify traineeship opportunities linked to prison industries.16 The Panel strongly supports such initiatives.
Training Provision TAFE Institutes are funded to deliver training in public correctional facilities through their profile agreements with the State Training Board of Victoria. CORE is not a party to these agreements. In contrast, the State Training Board funds training in private prisons through contracts with the private prison managers who sub-contract delivery to TAFE Institutes.
Delivery of adult prison training is currently undertaken by seven TAFE Institutes, as indicated in table 6.3.
Table 6.3 Education Providers Education Provider Prison University of Ballarat Ararat Langi Kal Kal Bendigo Regional Institute of TAFE Bendigo Loddon Tarrengower Central Gippsland TAFE Won Wron Gordon Institute of TAFE Barwon Goulburn Ovens Institute of TAFE Beechworth Dhurringile East Gippsland Institute of TAFE Fulham Kangan Batman Institute of TAFE17 Melbourne Assessment Prison Port Phillip MWCC
15 Submission from Ray Griffiths, Director, Gippsland Institute of TAFE. 16 Office of Training and Further Education 1999, Planning Guide for Providers of Training and Further Education in Victoria 2000–2002, p. 88. 17 Kangan Batman Institute of TAFE also provides education and training at the Thomas Embling Hospital, Victoria’s forensic mental health facility. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 65
In 1999, an estimated 6,410 prisoner enrolments received an average of 92 student contact hours (SCH) per enrolment. This can be compared to 1995 when 3,534 prisoner enrolments received an average of 132 SCH hours each. The increase in prisoner numbers means each prisoner, on average, now receives less education and training than previously, and that pressure on finite training facilities, including equipment, is greatly increased. As would be expected, this situation creates additional difficulties in delivering appropriate vocational education and training at correctional campuses.
Assessing Performance in the Provision of Education and Training Service Delivery Outcomes in this area are expressed in terms of the number of prisoners enrolled in, and the number having completed, relevant modules in adult basic education or accredited vocational training as a proportion of the prisoners identified as requiring such courses in their Individual Management Plans.
A number of concerns have been identified with these benchmarks. In the wider community, the trend is toward using assessments of student learning outcomes, employment outcomes and student satisfaction. None of these measures have been used in Victorian prisons, although the Panel believes there is potential to assess literacy, numeracy and problem-solving skills.
A further issue, identified by KPMG18 is the hours for which prisoners are actually receiving tuition. There has been a drift toward smaller modules that can be delivered more easily within the corrections environment. The use of ‘module’ as a measurement does not account for this. However, it is unlikely that training providers would wish to measure the face-to-face hours of training delivered to prisoners as this would discourage the development of flexible delivery modes.
KPMG also suggests that there is a need to streamline the collection of data and reporting requirements for measuring this Service Delivery Outcome.
Delivery of Education and Training to Prisoners As a group, prisoners have significantly lower educational outcomes than the wider community. Many prisoners have very low self-esteem and their past experiences of school and the education system are generally negative. More than three-quarters of Victorian prisoners have not completed secondary education. For people who have had transient lifestyles and, in the past, not conformed easily to traditions and routines, there is often a reluctance, a lack of confidence and a hesitancy to embark on education programs. This presents enormous challenges for those individuals and organisations delivering training in prisons, given the need to focus on programs that are specifically designed to avoid situations that may reinforce a failure syndrome.
A number of examples of good practice in prisoner education were highlighted to the Panel. One of these is East Gippsland Institute of TAFE’s education and training programs delivered at Fulham Correctional Centre. This approach emphasises improving self-esteem and providing a hands-on approach to learning through building skill development (such as literacy and numeracy) into industry-based training.
Education and training in a prison environment is very different from education and training in the wider community. Prisoner training caters for a unique group of students whose attitudes, abilities and ethnicity are very diverse, who may be transferred between prisons with varying degrees of frequency, and whose stay in any given prison varies from a couple of months or less to 10 years or more. Moreover, the majority of prisoners do not have a strong employment record (over 60% of prisoners in Victoria were unemployed prior to their imprisonment). This also contributes to the specific difficulties of delivering meaningful vocational education and training in prisons.
Consequently, the Panel considers it very important that the Office of PETE permit greater flexibility in the delivery of training in prisons than may apply to providers of training and further education more generally. Although the Corrections Industry Training Board constitutes one valuable source of
18 KPMG Consulting, op. cit., p. 46. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 66 advice to underpin planning, education and training in prisons needs to be more closely linked to an assessment of the educational and vocational needs of the prisoner population. Moreover, current policy should be reviewed to more clearly identify the role that education and training services are expected to play within the overall rehabilitation framework.
Currently, there is a group of prisoners within both public and private prisons who are involved in higher education mainly provided through the distance education programs of a number of Victorian universities. It has been suggested to the Panel that prisoners are, in terms of access to higher education, a very disadvantaged group. Their incarceration means there are significant limitations on their ability to undertake higher education courses except through off-campus studies. Even here, most cannot use direct online communication with the universities because of prison security requirements. Consequently, the Panel believes that prisoners as a group should be viewed as educationally disadvantaged and eligible for equity funding from the Commonwealth Government.
Recommendation 4. The Panel recommends that the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, in consultation with the Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, develop a consistent policy of higher education provision for adult prisoners. This could include the recognition of tertiary-enrolled adult prisoners as belonging to a category of educationally disadvantaged students, the allocation of university equity funding to provide tutor visits, and the development of standardised pathways to enhance opportunities for prisoners to access higher education.
Funding Issues Prisoners do not have the level of access to the education and training they require to improve their prospects of a successful return to the community after their term of imprisonment.
The Office of Post Compulsory Education, Training and Employment (Office of PETE) reported to the Panel that, since 1994, the value of education and training in prisons has increased by 10% in real terms, while the demand for education and training has increased by 88%. This has frequently resulted in long lists of prisoners waiting for access to education and training programs. The Office pointed out that: • funding of TAFE in prisons had not maintained pace with the demand for education and training; • this has resulted in a diminution in the quality and range of TAFE on offer; and • there are inequities in TAFE funding between public and private prisons.
In the case of Thomas Embling Hospital, where the bed numbers are being increased from 60 to 120, there has been no budget allocation to cover education and training for patients.
Private prisons are funded at ‘industry prices’ (that is, the price paid by the Office of PETE to industry for providing TAFE programs). The prices for ‘corrections’ education and training, which are paid to TAFE Institutes for providing education and training in public prisons, are much higher. In addition, the private prisons are required to meet all infrastructure costs.
The higher ‘corrections’ rate for education and training is intended to reflect the additional costs of maintaining security and operating with smaller class sizes in prisons; therefore, it should apply to both public and private prisons.
The result has been that, in 1999, the average price per SCH paid to TAFE Institutes for education and training delivered in public prisons was $13.47 ($11.45 training delivery plus $2.02 infrastructure rate). In private prisons, the price per SCH of training was $7.46 (with no infrastructure payment). Given the movement of prisoners across the system, this means, in many cases, that the same type of training can be provided to the same prisoner at quite different funding rates, or that continuity of the INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 67 education or training program may not be available on transfer between prisons. Clearly, this anomaly needs to be addressed.
In addition, the requirement for private prisons to meet all infrastructure costs has been interpreted by TAFE Institutes to mean the private providers must also supply all equipment associated with training. The TAFE Institutes see this as resulting in the private prisons being excluded from access to Commonwealth Equipment Grants that are available to support the education of prisoners located in public prisons. Again, this is inequitable.
The Panel concluded that there was an urgent need to review the funding provided for prisoner education. It is aware that the Office of PETE is currently reviewing its pricing and funding model. It understands that an outcome of the review will be to recommend an approach that is relatively transparent, recognises the diversity of the system, and is comparatively simple to implement. The Investigation Panel would support such an approach.
However, any review of pricing and funding must take account of the training provider’s capacity to generate income in addition to that provided by the Government. In 1998 (the latest year for which figures are available) Victorian TAFE Institutes generated $153 million from fee-for-service activity. There is no similar opportunity for education and training units in prisons to generate fee for service income.
It appears to the Panel that, in the case of prison training, a preferable approach is based on negotiated profile setting procedures that take account of local and regional needs, rather than relying on price alone. There should be a recognition that prison education and training units, unlike other TAFE providers, do not have the capacity to generate revenue from fee-paying sources.
Consequently, the Panel believes there is a case for separately reviewing the way prisoner education and training is funded, and a need to significantly increase the level of funding. The Panel examined a number of options, one of which was establishing a separate allocation of funding for prisoner education and training. This allocation could be linked to the profile of prisoners in each prison, and what is known of their education and training needs. Although current contracts with the private prisons require them to provide appropriate training facilities, the Panel can see no reason why the purchase price for the delivery of education and training in private prisons should be different from that paid for training delivery in public prisons (less the infrastructure cost element). Providers of education and training in private prisons should also have access to equipment grants. As individual prisoners are likely to be the recipients of education and training programs delivered in both private and public prisons in the course of their sentence, such differences in payment regimes are inequitable.
The Panel understands that the Victorian Government’s Drugs Policy, Crime Prevention and Corrections Cabinet Sub-Committee is considering changes to the way education and training are provided in prisons. These changes include: • a substantial increase in the per capita funding of the education and training of prisoners in private prisons; • an allocation to Thomas Embling Hospital for education and training programs; and • an additional per capita payment to fund provision of post-release education and training of up to 600 hours for prisoners on their release from prison.
The Panel strongly supports all three of these proposals. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 68
Recommendations 5. The Panel recommends that the Department of Education, Employment and Training and the Department of Justice: (a) jointly support, through the budgetary process, increased funding of the education and training of prisoners in both public and private prisons; and (b) strongly pursue the proposals before the Drugs Policy, Crime Prevention and Corrections Cabinet Sub-Committee with a view to introduction of the proposed reforms by 2001. 6. The Panel recommends that the Department of Education, Employment and Training ensure, in future, that the price paid for the delivery of corrections education and training does not discriminate between public and private prisons.
Educational Needs of Female Prisoners The Panel also received advice that, for women in particular, less emphasis should be placed on vocational training and more on self-esteem, life skills and/or release preparation. It was suggested that a more appropriate focus for female prisoners was education in life skills, self-management skills and in independent living (such as budgeting, gaining access to health professionals, how to use community facilities, nutrition, childcare and housing). It is important that this type of education and training should take place throughout a woman’s sentence.
Research also suggests that, for many women prisoners, going to education is perceived much more as a social activity than for male prisoners. This aspect of education should not be discounted when designing educational programs for women.
Recommendation 7. The Panel recommends that education and training programs for women have a focus on life skills, self-management skills and self-esteem and that this be reflected in the planning and advice of the Corrections Industry Training Board.
6.4 DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAMS
Prisoner programs are the primary means by which prisoners are able to address their offending behaviours and rehabilitation goals. Given the significant numbers of prisoners with substance abuse problems entering the prison system, it is critical that quality drug treatment programs are implemented that provide opportunities for prisoner rehabilitation. The incarceration of persons who are also chronic substance abusers presents an important opportunity for treatment. Prison drug treatment service providers are in a position to cast a wide therapeutic net and intervene with prisoners who ordinarily would be unlikely to seek treatment. Without treatment, they are most likely to continue their drug use and criminogenic behaviours upon release.
6.4.1 Victorian Prisons Drug Strategy
The Victorian Prisons Drug Strategy (VPDS) was introduced in 1992. Based on the principles of detection, deterrence and treatment, it sets the policy framework for the management and control of drugs in prisons.19 The VPDS’s original aim was to maintain the safety and good order of the Victorian prison system by keeping drugs out of prisons. A secondary goal was to manage prisoners with substance abuse difficulties consistently and apply uniform sanctions for the use of drugs in prisons.
19 The VPDS has been modified and reassessed several times and is currently under review. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 69
The key objectives of the Victorian Prisons Drug Strategy have been: • to reduce the demand for drugs through deterrence programs (for example, the application of sanctions related to ‘identified drug user’ status for drug use); • to reduce the supply of drugs through effective detection processes (for example, random and targeted urine drug screens); and • to reduce the demand for drugs through treatment initiatives (comprising a hierarchy of types and levels of interventions).
6.4.2 Responsibility of Prison Providers
The private prison operators must comply with the requirements and standards detailed in the Victorian Prisons Drug Strategy, and provide a range of programs and approaches for prisoners to deal with substance abuse problems.
Treatment is an essential component of the Victorian Prisons Drug Strategy and it provides program opportunities for prisoners to address their offending behaviours. The ideal provision of drug treatment programs would establish a continuum of programs of graduated intensity that are linked within a complementary framework of support and are accessible to the maximum number of prisoners.
Three major categories of drug programs are currently available to Victorian prisoners. The substance abuse education programs are provided to prisoners as a means of disseminating information about substance abuse and the associated physical and social harms, and to challenge the links between the use of drugs and offending behaviour. While drug education is a useful intervention, it should not, however, be seen as a panacea for a habituated drug user to discontinue an entrenched, and at times ‘functional’ lifestyle overnight.
The relapse prevention programs are important in altering or modifying drug-using behaviour and maintaining that change. Although there are some core concepts that belong to all relapse prevention programs (for example, risk factors, drug use triggers, relapse cycles, identifying coping strategies), it is also important that there is enough flexibility within such programs to address individual prisoners’ needs.
The intensive treatment programs aim to provide support for prisoners who require a greater level of treatment intervention than the drug education programs. Such programs are to include ‘best practice’ approaches, and are to be provided to prisoners who have been assessed as having a serious substance abuse problem, to assist them in reducing offending behaviour.
6.4.3 Effectiveness of the Drug Strategy
KPMG Consulting’s review of the Victorian Prisons Drug Strategy in 1999 concluded that ‘there are no fundamental problems’ 20 with the strategy. The review observed that: there is little reliable assessment of whether the treatment in prison is effective for individual prisoners, in terms of short or long term change to the patterns of drug abuse, although there is some prima facie evidence of changes in patterns of drug abuse as evidenced by urinalysis tests for prisoners who have taken part in intensive drug treatment programs at CORE and Fulham.21
It also suggested a number of changes could be made to improve the strategy, including a greater focus of treatment resources on the periods just prior to and following release from prison.
20 KPMG Consulting 1999, Review of the Victorian Prisons Drug Strategy, Department of Justice. 21 ibid., p. 2. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 70
A number of prisoners informed the Panel that they do not consider the types of drug treatment programs currently delivered in private prisons to be meaningful or useful. Complaints included the view that most programs are too theoretical to fit their specific and practical needs, and that the information disseminated is either insufficient or not credible (not enough ‘street information’). Furthermore, there is no formal or systematic evaluation of drug and alcohol programs undertaken across the system.
The 10-bed drug treatment unit at the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre is never used to capacity (currently six prisoners are housed in that unit and undergoing treatment). In a prison where the population is identified as being ‘high risk’ in relation to substance abuse problems (coupled with the high level of drug-related incidents – the highest in the prison system), MWCC’s philosophy of prisoner management regarding prevention and treatment of drug use must be questioned.
Recommendations 8. The Panel recommends that the OCSC require the providers of all drug treatment programs to develop comprehensive evaluation components that are to be built into the program design, and ensure results are continually monitored to determine their effectiveness and changing treatment trends. 9. The Panel recommends that OCSC require that drug and alcohol programs include individual tailored relapse prevention plans that identify ‘high-risk’ situations and factors that assist the individual prisoner to develop effective coping mechanisms to reduce the recurrence of drug use.
6.5 MANAGING PRISONERS AT RISK OF SELF-HARM
The Review of Suicides and Self Harm in Victorian Prisons, and a number of Coronial inquiries into deaths in prisons, highlighted numerous issues and recommended improved practices relating to the management of prisoners at risk of self-harm. The Investigation Panel was pleased to find that a number of initiatives have been implemented across Victoria’s prisons: • a pilot Suicide Risk Assessment Tool has been developed and a validation study is under way at two prisons; • a working group has drafted a statewide framework for the management of high-risk prisoners; • a revised framework and terms of reference for post-incident reviews was completed and implemented in December 1999; • principles for sharing information between professional groups and correctional staff, and between providers, have been established; • two forums attended by a range of correctional staff and health professionals concerning suicide prevention have been conducted; • the OCSC has established a project to identify and validate competencies in suicide and self-harm procedures for correctional officers that will underpin the development of training material in this area; and • a Building Design Review Project has drafted guidelines for cell design that include minimisation of hanging points and fire safety issues. A first draft report has been completed and a prototype cell constructed.
The Panel was particularly impressed by the procedures at Port Phillip, which has devoted significant policy effort and resources to identifying at risk prisoners and minimising self-harm. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 71
Although, unfortunately, there will inevitably be cases of self-harm by prisoners from time to time, the Panel was satisfied that the present procedures, including recent reforms, provide adequate safeguards in terms of suicide risk assessment and the management of high-risk prisoners.
6.6 PRE- AND POST-RELEASE PROGRAMS
Almost all prisoners will eventually be released from custody and return to the community. Consequently, pre-release programs that address issues specific to reintegration into the community are critically important to rehabilitation. Pre-release programs that increase prisoners’ abilities to maintain themselves outside prison are also vital.
In Victoria, there are some significant obstacles to the coordinated action necessary for prisoner post- release planning. The biggest hurdle arises from the segmentation that exists between the public and private sector prisons, which has resulted in different working approaches to preparing prisoners for release.
Apart from the Community Integration Program (CIP) and Bendigo Prison’s life skills program,22 very few coordinated, extensive or uniform preparation for release programs are conducted across Victorian corrections.
In CORE prisons, all prisoners are expected to undertake the CIP, which is designed to address some of the more important post-release concerns. The public sector prisons also provide prisoners on release with rail tickets and transport to nearby stations. However, the private prison providers are not obliged, or required, to develop or implement formal pre-release programs.
The Community Integration Program was introduced into Victorian prisons in 1991. The CIP represents a combination of measures aimed at making the transition on release from prison as smooth and positive as possible. The program was developed to address the immediate integration needs of all prisoners by providing a standard series of subjects to prepare prisoners for release. It provides direct practical assistance, essential information and knowledge, and access to resources delivered by community agencies and support networks. It was designed to reduce the prospect of reoffending behaviour and enable prisoners to reintegrate into the broader community.
6.6.1 Requirements of Pre-Release Programs
It was suggested to the Panel that the correctional system has not established a continuum of programs that support offenders properly in their transition from the prison to the community. It is critical that offenders continue to have access to appropriate assistance after they leave prison, because that is when they are most forcefully confronted with the factors that led to their original criminal conviction. It is also important that prisoners are linked into such services while they are in prison so their post-release needs can be identified and appropriately targeted.
As the Uniting Church’s submission to the Panel highlighted: The Unit acknowledges that reintegration into the community is a significant challenge for many prisoners. The period immediately after release is a time of increased risk for drug-using ex-offenders. There needs to be a much greater provision of services and allocation of time, in a coordinated manner, to prepare prisoners for release.
Unemployment, health and substance abuse problems, and lack of housing and secure employment, are common issues in the lives of many men and women who enter prison. If they are to successfully
22 Bendigo Prison’s life skills program consists of three modules: Job Search (30 hours), community integration (20 hours) and personal care and management (30 hours). The program is TAFE funded and the mix of inputs from all sectors of the prison is an important aspect of pre-release preparation and distinguishes the program from the existing CIP. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 72 reintegrate into the community, it is very important that they have access to adequate income, supported accommodation and links into local community services for support.
A quality pre-release program in the prison is a vital step toward successful reintegration into the community. Such a program should start early enough in a prisoner’s sentence to enable community linkages to be established. However, the Panel heard that the effectiveness of such programs often depends upon linking prisoners to support services in their local communities. The majority of sentenced prisoners are released from non-metropolitan prisons. Since the majority of prisoners normally reside in Melbourne, it is a considerable challenge to develop programs that facilitate these linkages.
The Panel concluded that release preparation programs lack priority and emphasis across prison providers generally. Non-government organisations, which have a wealth of experience in case management approaches, need to be woven into the pre-release process. They are also critical in helping prisoners to obtain access to housing and other programs once they return to the community. To this end, non-government organisations made strong representations to the Panel of their desire to be involved in release preparation programs, and notified of prisoners to be released, instead of the current situation where newly released prisoners turn up at their door unexpectedly.
It is our experience that all prisons, both public and private, have found it difficult to facilitate access for community agencies to provide services to inmates. Whilst access is given to contracted in-prison providers the experience of non-government, non-contracted providers is that they regularly encounter . . . difficulties.23
The Minister for Corrections recently stated that the Government currently spends about ‘$300 per offender on post-release compared to $55,000 to keep them in the system. A little more money spent at that end, if it can help reduce the likelihood [of prisoners] coming back in, would be helpful’.24 The Panel supports this view and suggests that additional funding for the post-release support of prisoners should be directed at bringing community-based agencies into an effective partnership with prisons and their pre-release programs.
6.6.2 Post-Release Needs of Female Prisoners
No good telling women about services when they are just about to be released if they haven’t anywhere to go. What information I received in prison was just talk – no useful information.25
The particular post-release problems of women were highlighted to the Panel. Unlike men who are imprisoned, most women in prison leave behind children who are dependent solely upon them. Women often cite separation from their children as the worst aspect of their imprisonment; therefore, it is essential that adequate provision is made for women to have their children with them as soon as possible after release from prison. ‘The most basic requirement for a satisfactory starting point in cementing or re-establishing bonds with children is safe and secure accommodation.’26 Indeed, lack of accommodation is believed to be a major reason for women failing to successfully re-establish themselves in the community. Issues such as ‘training for release’, advice on benefits and part-time work, and access to childcare have also been identified as important issues for women leaving prison.27
The Panel was informed that MWCC did not provide a formal pre-release program, and it appears to have no planned approach to assisting women with post-release planning prior to their discharge from the prison location.
23 Submission from Antony Calabro, Executive Director, Australian Community Support Organisation. 24 Haermeyer, A. 2000, op. cit., p. 326. 25 Carnaby, Helen 1998, Road to Nowhere: A Report of Women’s Housing and Support Needs When Leaving Prison, Flat Out Inc., Collingwood, Victoria, p. 49. 26 ibid., p. 15. 27 Submission from the Victorian Women’s Prison Council. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 73
Recommendations 10. The Panel recommends that the OCSC develop a plan, in consultation with non-government organisations, for the involvement of appropriate non-government organisations in the delivery of pre-release programs and provision of post-release support for prisoners. 11. The Panel recommends that the Minister seek additional funding to be provided for the delivery of post-release programs by non-government organisations.
6.7 RESPONDING TO THE NEEDS OF WOMEN PRISONERS
While women make up a small minority of the total prisoner population, they are a diverse group with special needs. Generally, women offenders have more needs than similar male offenders and this is reflected in the range of between-gender differences that have emerged in corrections research.28 This is further reflected in the high numbers of mothers (who, in most cases, are the child(ren)’s primary care provider) who make up the women’s prison population. It is also mirrored in the rate of increase of young women offenders.29 Women have different physical, psychological, dietary, social, vocational and health requirements, and need to be managed accordingly.
The Panel heard that: It is absolutely essential that a broader range of sentencing options linked to an emphasis on rehabilitation and family unification is instituted to minimise the imprisonment of women for minor offences and avert the associated social and economic costs.30
Many prisoners have special health care needs and a compromised health status when they arrive in prison, but female prisoners have a higher than average rate of mental illness, substance abuse and undiagnosed physical problems.31 Studies demonstrate that incarcerated women utilise health services more than men due to sex-specific health concerns, including pregnancies. Drug use, depression, behavioural and emotional instability, relationship discord, and poor academic and vocational skills are the most common complaints women bring on admission to the prison system.32 Many studies detail significant numbers of incarcerated women reporting that they have been sexually or physically abused, and suggest survivors often turn to drugs to escape the painful memories of their abuse.
The complexity of these special health care needs, and the increased numbers of women with substance abuse problems, present a challenge for management and the health and drug treatment service providers working within prisons. As such, an holistic response is required that addresses any barriers to treatment participation. This will enable prison providers, in conjunction with drug treatment service providers, to recognise the complexity of the pathways and antecedents to drug abuse among this particular prisoner population.
The women prisoner population is relatively small and, consequently, is highly sensitive to any fluctuations in the numbers and profile of prisoners. This makes the task of their effective management difficult. The specialised requirements of women prisoners have implications for the
28 See, for example, Belcourt, R., Nouwens, T. & Lefebvre, L. 1993, ‘Examining the unexamined: recidivism among female offenders’, Forum on Corrections Research, 5(3); Blanchette, K. & Dowden, C . 1998, ‘A profile of sentenced women in the community: addressing needs for successful integration’, Forum on Corrections Research, 10(1); Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons 1997, Women in Prison: A Thematic Review, Home Office, London; Weiser-Eastel, P. 1992, Women and Crime: Imprisonment Issues, Australian Institute of Criminology – Trends and Issues in Crime and Ciminal Justice, No. 35, Canberra; Submission from the Victorian Women’s Prison Council. 29 On 30 June 1995, women aged under 25 years constituted 20.7% of the total female prison population. By 30 June 1999, this had risen to 34.1% of the total female population, although this figure decreased to 27.3% as at 30 June 2000. 30 Submission from Reverend Ray Cleary, Melbourne City Mission. 31 Submission from Forensicare. 32 Barry, T & O’Commor, J. 1998, Innovative approaches: Gresswell Women’s Service, Victoria’, paper presented to the National Conference on Women: Alcohol and Other Drugs, Adelaide; Raynor, M. 1993, Report into Allegations of Discrimination Against Female Prisoners at HMP Barwon, Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission, Melbourne; Newkirk, C. 1993, Mental health needs of the female offender, paper presented at the Fifth World Conference on Prison Health, Brisbane; Denton, B. 1994, Prison, Drugs and Women: Voices from Below, A Report for the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse, Melbourne. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 74 way correctional services should be delivered to women, for the design and layout of prison facilities, and for the education and training of custodial staff.
The Investigation Panel heard that the knowledge, skills and emotional demands required for staff working with women prisoners were very different from those required for working with male prisoners. Staff told us that the drain on emotional resilience was very high. Consequently, staff need consistent line management support, training and supervision to provide appropriate support for women prisoners.
Recommendation 12. The Panel recommends that the OCSC undertake an analysis of the specific knowledge, skills, mix of experience and attitudes required for effective management of women prisoners; that the results of this analysis be incorporated into staff training standards relating to women’s prisons; and that initial training and ongoing development for staff working with women prisoners be tailored to include modules specific to the needs of women prisoners and effective strategies for working with them.
6.8 RESPONDING TO THE NEEDS OF PRISONERS FROM DIFFERENT CULTURAL AND ETHNIC BACKGROUNDS
As outlined in section 2.4, a disturbing trend in the profile of Victorian prisoners is the increase in the number of Aboriginal prisoners and those from an Indochinese background.
A submission from the Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service Co-operative Limited stated that: Victoria’s ratio of indigenous to non-indigenous rates of imprisonment is 11.9. That means that indigenous people in Victoria are 12 times more likely to be imprisoned than non- indigenous people. Queensland (11.7) and Northern Territory (10.2) have lower ratios of indigenous imprisonment than Victoria.
The Panel met with a group of Aboriginal prisoners at Port Phillip Prison who expressed concerns regarding the long delay in filling the position of Aboriginal Liaison Officer at the prison. Although some of the delays appear to be outside the prison management’s control, the Panel believes there may be a case for designating an appropriate custodial officer to fill this role in the short term. The Panel also supports the view put forward by prisoners regarding the need for an Aboriginal Prisoner Listener at Port Phillip Prison.
The Panel was encouraged to hear of the arrangements put in place at both Port Phillip and at Fulham to provide culturally appropriate supports for Indochinese prisoners.
6.9 OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES WITHIN PRISONS
There are a number of other organisations that support prisoners as they move within the Victorian prison system. Many examples were provided to the Investigation Panel regarding the valuable assistance provided to prisoners and their families by non-government organisations, including welfare agencies, community legal services and religious organisations. These groups are too numerous to identify individually, but the Panel acknowledges their important role within the prison system.
6.9.1 Official Visitors
Official Visitors play a key role in ‘opening up’ the system. The Panel believes they form an integral part of the accountability framework, and that the scheme should continue. However, the Panel INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 75 concurs with the view expressed in the Audit report that there is some scope for further enhancing the overall effectiveness of the Official Visitors Program.33
It is essential that Official Visitors have the confidence of prisoners and prison staff, and are confident in their role. This can be better accomplished if Visitors are assisted to have a greater understanding of their role and responsibilities, and a more detailed knowledge of how the correctional system works. This could be achieved through, for example, an induction program or manual for Official Visitors that includes information on legislation, policies and procedures. This could particularly relate to areas in which prisoners are most likely to contact Official Visitors for explanation or assistance (such as sentence management issues, prison discipline or property). Ongoing support might also be provided through workshops on specific issues nominated by Official Visitors and/or an annual meeting with the Minister to discuss emerging issues.
The Panel noted that the OCSC has introduced a number of initiatives aimed at supporting and affirming the important role played by Official Visitors, including regular forums attended by the Correctional Services Commissioner and the Minister for Corrections. Work has also commenced on the design of an induction program, which is long overdue.
Official Visitors who met with the Panel were generally supportive of workshops sponsored by the Commissioner’s Office. They believed there was benefit in meeting together to share experiences although, for country Visitors (especially those in full-time employment), it is often difficult to make the time available for a full-day meeting in Melbourne. Notwithstanding these problems, the Panel’s view is that the OCSC should continue to provide forums and other activities, as appropriate, to support the valuable work undertaken by the Official Prison Visitors.
Recommendation 13. The Panel recommends that the OCSC continue to support the Official Visitors Program.
6.9.2 Prison Chaplains
Prison chaplains play an important role in supporting prisoners to practise their faith, by acting as independent advocates within the prison system, and by providing more general support to prisoners and their families.
State legislation and an international agreement state that prisoners have a right to practise the religion of their choice while in prison. This has been facilitated over many decades by the presence of chaplains in prisons.
In the early 1990s, a framework was established between the then Chaplains’ Advisory Group and CORE that outlined the role of chaplains within the public prison system and set down a staffing ratio of one equivalent full-time (EFT) chaplain to every 250 prison beds. At that time, it was also agreed that women’s prisons and reception prisons had higher needs and would therefore have a higher level of chaplaincy provision. Funding for chaplaincy services in CORE prisons is determined according to census figures and detailed in a service agreement, although prison chaplains work with prisoners who request help regardless of their religious affiliation.
The Panel was informed that the current chaplaincy arrangements in the private prisons: are unsatisfactory and fall below the standard of service that is provided in CORE prisons. [and] nothing has been able to be done because the contracts between the government and the private prison operators are very vague on the issue of religious practice.34
33 Auditor-General of Victoria, op. cit. 34 Submission from Synod of Victoria, Uniting Church in Australia. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 76
Chaplains reported that, in some prisons, there were problems accessing appropriate space in which to conduct formal religious ceremonies.
Chaplains from faiths other than Christianity face additional problems in negotiating on behalf of their members for access to appropriate facilities for the practice of their faith because their requirements are not well understood by prison staff.35
The particular problems of Muslim prisoners in gaining access to chaplaincy services, to halal meals and fasting during Ramadan were highlighted in submissions to the Investigation Panel. The Panel endorses the concerns expressed in submissions regarding the necessity to facilitate access by prisoners of faiths other than Christianity to chaplaincy and faith-appropriate services.
The Panel believes chaplains make a significant contribution to the support of prisoners and their families and should be encouraged in their work.
Recommendation 14. The Panel recommends that the OCSC undertake a review of chaplaincy services to identify any initiatives that could be taken to strengthen these services for prisoners.
6.9.3 Prisoner Legal Services
Several submissions to the Panel highlighted a number of perceived difficulties for community organisations and, in particular, the legal profession in gaining access to prisoners. On the one hand, a submission from the Law Institute stated: At the Port Phillip Prison members complain that once received into the visiting area it often takes longer than half an hour for the particular prisoner to arrive for their visit. There is also an inconsistency of approach depending upon the particular officer controlling the registration of the practitioner into the computer system.36
On the other hand, the Panel was informed that: The facilities for and flexibility surrounding professional visits, to Deer Park and Port Phillip in particular, have radically improved upon the previous model. The visiting facilities provide an appropriate degree of privacy with sufficient room for prisoners and professional staff as well as chairs and desks to work at.37.
The Panel heard that the introduction of the multi-provider system has made it more difficult for prisoners to seek redress for inadequate or negligent treatment within prison. Although the ability of prisoners to have their complaints dealt with appears to vary between prisons, the Panel was encouraged to receive the following submission from a prisoner at Port Phillip Prison: I recently made a complaint about a member of the staff here at Port Phillip Prison and management have upheld my complaint and passed on the apologies of the officer to me in writing. This clearly demonstrates the maturity of management here.
Nevertheless, the Panel was informed that there is limited legislation or case law in Victoria that pertains to the rights of prisoners or the obligations of prison operators. Consequently, several submissions pointed to the strong need for a dedicated prisoner legal service that provides information and advice, and represents prisoners in relation to their incarceration.
35 Submission from the Chaplains Advisory Committee to the Criminal Justice Sector in Victoria. 36 Submission from Tina Millar, President, Law Institute of Victoria. 37 Submission from Richard Bourke, Secretary, Criminal Bar Association. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 77
It is imperative that if we are serious about human rights in Victoria that we provide those most likely to have their rights breached, with quality legal advice and assistance.38
Currently, there are very limited avenues for prisoners or their families to gain legal advice or representation in relation to matters that arise from imprisonment. Cost-effective access to quality legal advice and assistance for prisoners could be provided through a prisoner legal service that was established in association with an existing community legal service.
A Prisoners’ Legal Service currently exists in Queensland as an independent non-profit organisation. It provides free legal advice and assistance to prisoners on matters such as parole/pre-release applications, disciplinary proceedings, complaints about treatment and conditions in Queensland prisons, and problems associated with classification, remission and segregation. It also carries out legal education for prisoners, research and development of legal resources for use by the public, private legal profession and other agencies, and law reform activities. The Panel supports the establishment of a similar legal service dedicated to the needs of prisoners in Victoria.
Recommendation 15. The Panel recommends that the Department of Justice establish and fund a Prisoners’ Legal Service attached to, or in association with, an existing Community Legal Centre.
6.10 PRISON CROWDING
The Panel recognises that the effects of overcrowding within the prison system generally has increased the difficulty in providing quality correctional services within individual prisons and across the system as a whole.
The Panel noted with concern that the growth in the number of prisoners in the Victorian prison system has led to the necessity of prisoners being doubled-up in units. Mattresses have been used on the floor of cells at MWCC, and double bunks used in many other prisons.
Although literature into double bunking is predominantly American, the research indicates that negative social relations and interactions are associated with the practice of double bunking. Many studies suggest prison overcrowding has a positive correlation to the number of assaults in prisons: prisoner assaults on prisoners, and prisoner assaults on staff, increase as prisoner numbers rise beyond capacity.39
Several studies have also demonstrated that overcrowding of prisons has deleterious effects on the physical and mental health of prisoners. In addition, overcrowding increases pressures on educational, recreational, health and religious services to prisoners. Exhaustion of prison services and limitations on recreational facilities (such as library books, television, lounge seating and recreational materials) increase the potential for boredom and tension and, subsequently, inflate the possibility of violence in the prison. The literature also suggests there may be consequences for staff that manifest themselves in an increase in staff turnover and the use of sick leave.40
The investigation by CORE into the impact of double bunking in public prisons concluded that: recent experience within Barwon and Loddon prisons is consistent with and confirms the literature. Both Barwon and Loddon showed an increase in the number of assaults, both prisoner on prisoner and prisoner on staff. The health implications were evident in the increase of self-mutilation and attempted suicide incidents as well as the anecdotal evidence, which revealed trends in complaints, prescription and diagnosis. The strain on prison services
38 Submission from the Federation of Community Legal Centres. 39 CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise A Report on Matters Associated with Double Bunking in CORE Prisons, Operational Review and Inspections Unit. 40 ibid., pp. 1–11. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 78
was illustrated by the resource implications in the provision of education and other programs and staff ill health data showed an increase following the implementation of double bunking.41
These issues highlight that the need for additional prison capacity for both male and female prisoners remains a critical issue in the short and long term. The proposed 20-bed transitional facilities will provide much-needed pre- and post-release support in the metropolitan area. Although the Panel strongly supports the other expansion initiatives announced by the Government in the 2000–2001 Budget, it received many submissions regarding the need for a greater availability of prison beds in readily accessible areas of metropolitan Melbourne. As was noted by the Audit Review of Government Contracts, the location and the lack of easy public transport to the new prisons has had a detrimental effect on the capacity of families to visit prisoners easily.
If family and friendship relationships are weakened it may be harder for some prisoners to move back into normal membership of the community after their release. This may diminish prisoner’s rehabilitation prospects.42
As has been previously noted, the majority of prisoners come from the metropolitan area and most will return there after release from prison. If the success of post-release programs is, at least in part, related to the capacity to link prisoners into local community-based services, prisoners being released from regional minimum security prisons will have much greater difficulties in this regard.
Recommendation 16. The Panel recommends that research into the impact of overcrowding be a priority project to be undertaken by the proposed Correctional Research Institute (see section 8.3.3 of this report).
6.11 PRISON DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE
While the Investigation Panel’s work dealt largely with issues relating to the provision of correctional services, the impact of accommodation services on the operation of the prison should not be underestimated.
The Investigation Panel has noted that the development of a 10-year plan for infrastructure development across the prison system has commenced. As the Panel has noted in its comments pertaining to the planning function in chapter 8, it is critical that this plan take account of projections in the absolute numbers of prisoners and, to the extent possible, be informed by analysis regarding the possible future profiles of prisoners. The relationship between prison design and its suitability to the needs of the specific prison population that it houses makes a significant contribution to the effectiveness of prisoner management.
6.11.1 Telephone System
Try to understand this simple point: The Arunta phone system breaks down every second day. It is a … lemon that has so many faults that it can hardly even be called a ‘system’. A system has to work the majority of the time to qualify for that description.43
The Arunta phone system, which was developed specifically for use in prisons to enable monitoring of phone calls, is used throughout Australia. Telstra owns, installs and maintains this system under contractual agreements with each of the prison providers.
41ibid., p. 30. 42 Russell, E. W., op. cit., p. 22. 43 Submission from a prisoner at Port Phillip Prison. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 79
The Panel received many complaints from prisoners regarding this system’s operation. A serious concern of prisoners was the high cost of telephone calls. As one Port Phillip prisoner pointed out to the Panel: I am not a member of the public, I do not receive a wage that is in line with accepted community standards so why should I pay ‘public’ payphone rates. This is not a public place, it is a prison and I am an inmate and for better or worse this is where I live.
The Panel heard prisoners, prison management and the Department of Justice had made many representations to Telstra regarding the high telephone costs incurred by prisoners using this system. The financial burden was particularly high where prisoners had to make STD telephone calls, such as when they were imprisoned at Fulham, or when their families lived in rural Victoria. The Panel was concerned to hear that all these appeals appear to have been unsuccessful.
The second issue raised by prisoners related to the poor quality of service, specifically malfunctions that caused the system to cease operating on an unacceptably frequent basis.
The Panel considers that both the concerns expressed by prisoners should be addressed as a matter of urgency.
Recommendation 17. The Panel recommends that the Minister for Corrections: (a) contacts Telstra to seek agreement for a reduction in the telephone costs for Victorian prisoners; (b) seek agreement from the appropriate Ministers in other States and Territories for a joint approach to Telstra regarding changes to the conditions under which Telstra operates the Arunta Telephone System such that costs of prisoner telephone calls are reduced; and (c) seek agreement from the Commonwealth Minister for Communications for his support for further approaches through the Corrections Ministerial forum to change the conditions under which Telstra operates the Arunta Telephone System such that costs of prisoner telephone calls are reduced.
6.11.2 Fire Standards
In July 1988, the Prisons Fire Procedures Advisory Group was established as a direct result of a major fire at the Metropolitan Reception Prison Coburg. Its terms of reference were agreed between the then Office of Corrections, the Metropolitan Fire Brigade (MFB) and the Country Fire Authority (CFA). The role of the Group was to: • provide a forum for liaison between the prison service and fire services (that is, the CFA and MFB; and • provide expert advice on the development of fire procedures, purchases of fire equipment, fire awareness training and other fire-related matters.
With the creation of private prison providers in 1996, the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner took responsibility for the operation of this Group and expanded its membership to include private providers.
In March 1999, the Commissioner’s Office produced a document entitled Prison Fire and Safety Advisory Group (PFASAG) Guiding Principles. This document included PFASAG membership, PFASAG Reporting Lines, relevant Australian standards, and performance requirements for the maintenance of essential services. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 80
The Panel was informed that this Group had not met since 1999 and strongly recommends that it be reconvened.
Recommendation 18. The Panel recommends that the Prison Fire and Safety Advisory Group be reconvened.
6.11.3 Design Issues Specific to the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre
A number of issues in relation to the prison design and facilities at MWCC were raised with the Investigation Panel. A particular concern raised by non-government agencies and the legal profession was the inappropriate and insufficient interview facilities at the prison, resulting in the need to interview and/or counsel women prisoners in the open grounds of the prison. This situation does not assist the achievement of positive outcomes for either women prisoners or their representatives. Submissions were also received regarding the need for a redesign of the facilities to enable a physical separation of young and first-time offenders within the prison complex. It was alleged that the failure to keep young and first-time offenders separate had led to incidents of assault, ‘standovers’ and bullying of these vulnerable prisoners.
On its visits to MWCC, the Panel saw two women working in the prison grounds on only one occasion, and observed that the constant buffeting from strong winds due to the lack of a solid fence was likely to quickly undo any horticultural gains in any case. The Panel gained an impression of the prison as ‘run down’ in appearance. This was symptomatic of a possible lack of care for or about the surroundings by prisoners and staff alike which, in turn, impacts on how staff perform their duties and how prisoners behave.
Specific concerns were raised with the Panel as to whether the existing infrastructure, including program areas, will be adequate to cater for the proposed prison capacity expansion at MWCC. It was suggested that alternatives, including building additional prison capacity for women apart from MWCC, should be considered.
A view was put to the Panel that MWCC was designed without an understanding of the program needs of women prisoners. The oval and the leisure centre (amenities that would receive high usage in a men’s prison) appear to be greatly underutilised. At the same time, there is a pressing need for additional interview facilities, particularly for the numerous non-government organisations that visit the prison to provide ongoing support.
The Panel noted that the increased number of prisoners, and the changing profile of female offenders, has led to the redesignation of a number of units at MWCC. Although a degree of flexibility is desirable in ensuring an ongoing ‘fit’ between the size of units and numbers of prisoner groups, there is an extent to which the integrity of the original prison design has been compromised, and the rationale for particular design features lost. For example, the original induction unit now accommodates protection prisoners. While the need to keep protection prisoners separate is acknowledged, the placement of newly received prisoners in a unit where they are unable to be locked in individual cells has allegedly resulted in ‘standovers’ and other unacceptable practices. The Panel understands that the induction unit is to be relocated to the new demountable unit, and this should ease some of these difficulties.
The Panel concluded that the poor condition of the prison facilities and the general unsuitability of some of the units for the prisoners’ needs will require a substantial review of the prison’s design and suitability. It appears that some capital expenditure will be required to effect the necessary improvements identified in this process. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 81
6.12 SECURITY
As has been discussed above, the potential for compromise to the prison’s security is greatly increased when it holds more prisoners than allowed for in the original design.
An efficient prison system’s primary objective is maintaining secure prison establishments in which the community has confidence. This security does not only mean a well-protected perimeter to each prison, but also includes the security of equipment and buildings, and general staff acceptance of the major aims of a correctional service. These aims include containing and controlling prisoners and then, when that is achieved, gradually rehabilitating them.
An efficient security program within a prison builds confidence within the community and prison staff, and guarantees that this part of the criminal justice system operates for the benefit of both the community and the prisoners.
The community has a right to demand the safe and humane containment and control of all prisoners lawfully sentenced to imprisonment. Following the various incidents since 1996, when the private providers began operating, public confidence in this control has considerably diminished to a point where the prison management principles have come under close scrutiny, and the confidence of the community in prison management has reached a low ebb.
Correctional Policy and Management Standards for security have a stated outcome that prison security effectively: (a) ensures the protection of the community by minimising the risk of prisoner escape; (b) provides a secure working and living environment for prisoners, visitors and staff; and (c) within the prison, controls any article or substance that may threaten the good order or security of the prison.44
The Panel has concluded that, at Fulham and Port Phillip prisons, security is being addressed through incident reviews, self-audits, and regular and precise operational procedures that are monitored internally through management processes. Results of these audits and any issues raised through monitoring conducted by the OCSC have been immediately addressed.
This is not the situation at MWCC. The security function needs to be greatly improved before this maximum security facility is able to meet its contractual arrangements.
6.12.1 Security Management: Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre
The OCSC has reviewed this facility for security compliance against prison management specifications and service standards on at least six separate occasions between August 1996 and July 2000. In addition, a number of significant incidents at MWCC were also reviewed.
Three Default Notices detailing significant incidents (which include failures in the delivery of security services and failures identified from the Security and Emergency Services Group security review) have been issued as a result.
On 1 June 2000, the OCSC engaged the Security and Emergency Services Group (SESG) to conduct a full security review of the MWCC.
The review team identified a number of significant issues in respect to security management at the prison. The number and type of issues led the review team to question the extent to which the prison was meeting its obligations to provide a safe and secure environment for prisoners.
44 OCSC 1995, op. cit., p.9; and OCSC 1996, op. cit., p.9. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 82
This review found that: Whilst many of the individual issues were evidence that there was, and had been for some time, an absence of any management of the security function at the prison. The review team found that absence of documentation, policies and procedures to provide direction to staff and to assist in ensuring consistency in respect to prisoner management may well have been a contributing factor to the many prisoner management issues and incidents that have occurred at the prison over recent times.45
6.12.2 Security Management: Fulham Correctional Centre
The OCSC reviewed this facility for compliance against prison security management specifications and service standards on five separate occasions between April 1997 and February 2000, including two major incidents.
Fulham, as part of its quality system and focus on the security management function, has developed a security and emergency procedures self-audit program that is intended to be conducted on an annual basis. Security is also a regular agenda item for meetings of the Centre’s Managers and Work Place Consultative Committee.
The prison has also given priority to security refresher training aimed at the Correctional Officer level. It has committed to deliver 36 hours of training for each officer by rostering training in three 12-hour shifts a week between May and August each year.
6.12.3 Security Management: Port Phillip Prison
The OCSC reviewed this facility for compliance against prison security management specifications and service standards on five separate occasions between September 1997 and April 1999.
Port Phillip has conducted internal audits and Security Verification analysis on a regular basis. These audits covered Static Security, Dynamic Security, Security Management and Emergency Management. Risk assessments were also conducted on the Perimeter Security between March 1999 and May 2000.
The prison has, as part of its software package (PARADIGM), a program designed specifically for internal audit processes that is used to review all security areas on a regular basis. Records have been kept since January 2000. There are clearly defined role responsibilities for middle and senior management who are held accountable for the security function.
45 Security and Emergency Services Group 2000, Security Review of the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre. Conducted by the Security and Emergency Services Group on behalf of the Correctional Services Commissioner. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 83
Chapter 7 Health Services
The system does not readily support communication and relies on the individual providers to bridge communication gaps.46
Nowhere is the fragmentation of the corrections system more apparent than in the provision of health services. As the Correctional Services Commissioner pointed out to the Panel, the problems of fragmentation have been highlighted in Coronial Inquest findings concerning the lack of coordination and communications between various parts of the system.
Prior to the privatisation of prisons, there was a single medical and psychiatric provider of prison health services – the Department of Human Services (DHS). A clinical director based at Pentridge Hospital coordinated the delivery of clinical services across the system. At times, even this system was not always fully coordinated as there were no formal standards for the delivery of health services, and contracted medical officers in country prisons applied their own approaches to prisoner health care.
Under a Cabinet decision of August 1995, DHS was given the responsibilities of monitoring the provision of health and psychiatric services in Victorian private and public prisons, and assisting with the development of policy and standards.
With the privatisation of prisons, the accredited health provider (St Vincent’s Correctional Health) at Port Phillip Prison was contracted to provide clinical coordination of health care services across the system as well as secondary and tertiary health care for prisoners. Although there has been a relatively effective coordination of secondary and tertiary medical services through St Vincent’s Hospital, the health care system as a whole has become fragmented, and there appears to have been some diminution of resources.
The separate contracting of the other components of health services (primary medical care, psychological services and mental health services) by each correctional services provider has led to major difficulties in providing appropriate standards in the continuity of care for prisoners. The contractual framework has also created divisions between the delivery of health care services on the one hand, and drug and alcohol services and suicide prevention strategies on the other. Neither the Department of Justice nor DHS has sole authority to advocate on behalf of correctional health services, and there is no single point of accountability for health care provision in the current system.
The various providers of these services are set out in the following table.
46 Submission from Sisters of Charity Health Service, Melbourne. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 84
Table 7.1 Health and Drug and Alcohol Providers Prison Health Provider Drug and Alcohol Provider Melbourne Assessment Forensicare NW Health Network Port Phillip St Vincents Moreland Hall MWCC CCA Caraniche/CCA Fulham ACM ACM Ararat Pacific Shores Caraniche Barwon Pacific Shores Caraniche Beechworth Pacific Shores CORE Bendigo Pacific Shores Caraniche Dhurringile Pacific Shores CORE Langi Kal Kal Pacific Shores Caraniche Loddon Pacific Shores Caraniche Tarrengower Pacific Shores Caraniche/VACRO Won Wron Pacific Shores VACRO
As a group, prisoners have poorer health status than the wider community. As Forensicare outlined in its submission to the Panel: when they arrive in prison as a group [they] have higher rates of mental illness, issues of substance abuse, frequently undiagnosed physical problems and little knowledge of disease prevention. The interaction of these factors with environmental issues relating to prisons themselves means that there are large demands made on prison health care.
Adequate provision of health services to prisoners, along with safety and security, is central to their care. It can make a major contribution to humane treatment and the orderly management of prisons.
7.1 CURRENT PROBLEMS WITH THE DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE
With a significant number of prisoner movements across Victoria’s prison system, prisoners’ health care has been compromised by the system’s fragmentation. In recent reports, both the Auditor- General and the State Coroner have criticised the problems of lack of continuity of care and communication that have arisen with the current arrangements. These problems include: • the differences in management of prisoner health, their risk categorisation and the standards of care; • the constraints on information sharing between health providers, and between health providers and corrections staff; • inconsistencies that hamper the development of standards for system-wide treatment; and • very limited access to accurate costs of delivering health services to prisoners.
With Victoria’s relatively small population of prisoners, the number of health providers adversely affects the development of a strong critical mass of expertise, leaves gaps in service provision, and leads to higher costs of pharmaceuticals. There was additional criticism of the fact that government expertise in the provision of prison health care had been diminished, and this had detracted from the Government’s monitoring responsibilities.
These problems are not unique to Victoria. Similar issues have arisen in other States and among overseas authorities. However, even after the introduction of private prisons when a significant proportion of prison places were moved from the city to the country, the basic model for prisoner health care in Victoria did not change. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 85
There is now a loss of interconnectedness between the health providers in prisons, and there is no clinical driver of the corrections health system.
The Correctional Services Commissioner made the point that ‘the current correctional health system has no one champion for prison health services’. Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) made a similar observation in its submission: ACM is of the opinion a structure needs to be established at the government level that is responsible for ‘leading’ and ‘developing’ the Victorian Corrections Health Service.
Even though a number of health providers use a common medical record, the exchange of information between providers still relies on individual staff. The information exchanged on the health of prisoners moving from one prison to another is frequently limited. Even greater restrictions are placed on the confidentiality of a prisoner’s medical record when the prisoner moves between prisons with different health providers. In some cases, this can have damaging results for the continuity of care.
Health service providers have at times felt frustrated by the lack of action in policy development at the government level. For example for three years health service providers have been attempting to establish a consistent approach to the use of the medical record.47
The Investigation Panel was informed that some steps have been taken to improve current arrangements. These include the following initiatives: • health and correctional providers have agreed to a set of health information sharing principles, which was developed for consideration by the Corrections Health Board. A correctional/health working group is currently examining the implementation of these principles; • chaired by OCSC, a high-risk case management working group, including DHS, is identifying common terminology and definitions for prisoners at risk of suicide and self-harm. A standardised ‘at risk’ assessment tool is also being developed; • DHS is coordinating the development of a standardised prisoner medical file that will be used across the system. This is expected to be finalised within the next few months; and • DHS undertakes regular audits of file/medication transfers to ensure files and medications are appropriately transferred with a prisoner to their new prison location.
7.1.1 Male Health Services: Current Arrangements
Male prisoners requiring secondary and tertiary medical treatment are transported to Port Phillip Prison where St Vincent’s Correctional Health Service provides health services. These movements disrupt prisoners’ social stability, subject them to different procedures and standards, and sometimes result in what prisoners may see as loss of privileges when they return to their base prison. These privileges may be a change of accommodation, loss of employment or education opportunities, or a place in a program.
The Panel received several representations from prisoners who did not want to leave their base prison for medical treatment. DHS advised the Panel that they regularly receive letters of complaint from prisoners who do not want, or feel that they need, to return to Port Phillip Prison for health treatment. Prisoners from country prisons particularly are distressed at having to return to Melbourne when there is a possibility they will lose their accommodation and experience a long trip in the back of a transport van.
Capacity constraints at Port Phillip Prison mean those prisoners requiring medical treatment over a period of time have to go back and forth between their base prison and Port Phillip. This increases the
47 Submission from Kevin Lewis, Managing Director, Australasian Correctional Management. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 86 number of prisoner movements (with the associated risks), and places more pressure on the limited places for prisoners in the metropolitan area.
The Panel encountered prisoners who refused to accept needed medical treatment because it entailed temporary transfer to Port Phillip Prison. Staff at the prisons the Panel visited confirmed the reluctance of prisoners to accept medical treatment transfers to Port Phillip.
In one case a prisoner’s family brought to the attention of HSC [Health Services Commissioner] the plight of their relative who had refused to access tertiary care for cancer because he did not want to return to Port Phillip.48
Table 7.2 summarises the number of male prisoners transferred, and indicates the primary reason for that transfer. The number of medical returns has decreased, as has the percentage (from 22% to 17% of all returns), but this has been offset by an increase in prisoners escorted under Custodial Community Permit for ‘Health Medical Hospital' reasons. The net effect is that total movements for medical reasons (that is, returns and Custodial Community Permits combined) have increased by 5.9%. However, given the overall increase in prisoner numbers, the average number of such movements per prisoner per year has remained at just over one.
Table 7.2 Male Prisoner Movements for Medical Reasons 1998–99 and 1999–0049 1998-99 1999-00 Prisoners Medical Total Prisoners Medical Total % Change Transferred leaves Medical Transferred Leaves Medical 1998-99 to PPP/MAP for (CCPP) Movements to PPP/MAP for (CCPP) Movements to Medical Reasons Medical Reasons 1999-00 Ararat 140 151 291 81 227 308 5.8% Barwon 90 97 187 90 179 269 43.9% Beechworth 39 263 302 44 256 300 -0.7% Bendigo 17 193 210 14 236 250 19.0% Dhurringle 20 379 399 29 322 351 -12.0% Fulham 120 217 337 90 235 325 -3.6% Langi Kal Kal 18 276 294 14 276 290 -1.4% Loddon 71 414 485 57 429 486 0.2% Won Wron 13 298 311 12 392 404 29.9% Total 528 2,288 2,816 431 2,552 2,983 5.9%
A major difference in the current arrangements is the distance covered when transporting prisoners to Port Phillip Prison’s health services. When those health services were at Pentridge, the problem was not so acute. Now it is more likely that a prisoner from Fulham, for example, will have to be held over a few days at Port Phillip while awaiting the next transport run back to Fulham.
7.1.2 Women’s Health Services: Current Arrangements
Women’s health services are generally provided at the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre (MWCC), although the model requires that women prisoners access non-acute tertiary services at Port Phillip. As with male prisoners, female prisoners at Tarrengower told the Panel that they were similarly reluctant to transfer to MWCC for medical treatment.
48 Submission from Beth Wilson, Health Services Commissioner. 49 The number of returns include prisoners returned to the Melbourne Assessment Prison as well as prisoners returned to Port Phillip. The number of prisoners recorded as 'transit' also includes a small number of prisoners who transfer between prisons enroute (for example, Ararat to Langi Kal Kal). The numbers do NOT count any prisoner transferred or escorted by the individual prison, where the prisoner is transferred by any means other than the escort van. The reliability of this data is difficult to verify: it has been manually counted from hand-written records held by the Sentence Management Unit at the Melbourne Assessment Prison. These records do not correlate directly with any of the PIMS/data warehouse records as they are a sub-set of Gaol Transfers, and indicate only those affected via the escort van. Unfortunately, the same data are not kept in relation to women prisoners. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 87
The Panel was informed of female prisoners’ complex health needs from a number of sources. These health needs are frequently related to drug and alcohol problems, abuse, and a lack of coping abilities that can be aggravated by a term of imprisonment. Often female prisoners will resort to medication to help them to cope.
In its submission to the Panel, the Sisters of Charity Health Service stated that female prisoners require greater funding (proportionately) than male prisoners: Many of the issues around prison health for women reflect inadequate funding which makes medication more attractive for both service providers and female prisoners. Pressure on medical staff to prescribe psychoactive medication is often considerable.
7.2 A NEW APPROACH TO THE HEALTH CARE OF VICTORIAN PRISONERS
The Correctional Services Commissioner informed the Panel that the Department of Justice and DHS recognise the current arrangements are not satisfactory, and that policy development and planning need to be strengthened.
With all primary, secondary and tertiary health services brought together (general health and mental health) under a single provider, the Investigation Panel believes that significant improvements could be expected in: • continuity of care; • standards of care (regardless of location); • accountability for health outcomes; • management of high-risk prisoners; • increased purchasing power; • recruitment and retention of health staff and their development; and • clinical leadership and the development of health policy.
Prison health providers are required to be accredited by an agency such as the Australian Council of Health Services (ACHS), although not all the current providers are so accredited. It was suggested to the Panel that greater benefit would be gained by Victoria working with ACHS to develop accreditation standards that are specific to prison health care. A single provider would be a considerable advantage in achieving this, and the Panel supports such a development.
With the first private prison operating contract coming up for review, the Panel believes improvement should be sought in the coordination of continuity of care and accountability for prisoner health care. The preferred model should be a single publicly funded health provider (that is, a not-for-profit provider), contracted by the Government through the Department of Justice.
This provider would coordinate the delivery of all primary, secondary and tertiary health care services to prisoners. An essential objective of the arrangement should be the separation of responsibility for control of the provision of prisoner health services from the provision of prisoner management. If health staff do not maintain their independence from prison management, the potential exists for health matters to be considered secondary to the correctional service imperatives, and this is a risk to the delivery of appropriate and timely health services.
The proposed model would not exclude the possibility of a consortia of two or three publicly funded health organisations acting together to provide the services, but reporting to a single Medical Director of Correctional Health Services. This Medical Director would be responsible for the overall correctional health service: policy, standards, monitoring and coordination. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 88
The lack of coordination between drug and alcohol services and health services created by the contractual framework also needs to be addressed. The Medical Director should oversee the drug and alcohol services as well as medical services. This model was in existence prior to privatisation and had the negative effect of separating these services from correctional case management. This problem should be overcome by developing an effective case management system that is part of prison operators’ contractual management.
Under a single health provider model, arrangements for primary health will continue to be delivered locally. More secondary and tertiary health services for prisoners would also be delivered at a local level. This would reduce prisoner movements over longer distances (and the risks associated with such movements), the time prisoners spend away from their base prison for health treatment, and the reluctance of prisoners to travel to receive required treatment. It should also improve the standards of management of prisoner health care and correctional health services.
Increasing the provision of health services at the local level should also help to relieve the pressures on places at metropolitan prisons, and help prisoner movements from Melbourne Assessment Prison to Port Phillip Prison.
Most secondary, and some tertiary, services are available at large regional hospitals near the country prisons (Ararat, Bendigo, Geelong, Gippsland Base, Latrobe Valley and Wangaratta Base). Prisoners in country prisons should be able to access these services. While moves are being made to develop the single provider model, this change can be achieved without dismantling the current contractual framework by setting up a system of invoicing between the local hospital and health service to St Vincent’s Correctional Health. Under this model, St Vincent’s remains responsible for secondary and tertiary health care services.
The primary care medical officer at the prison would determine, in conjunction with the Clinical Director, St Vincent’s Correctional Health Services, whether the required specialist services could be provided by the local hospital, or whether the prisoner must return to Port Phillip Prison for assessment/treatment at St Vincent’s. Factors that would be taken into consideration in referring to a local service are: • the medical services required can be provided locally by hospitals or specialist groups, as appropriate; • the local provider agrees to provide the service; • the patient does not require extended escort at the local hospital (that is, an officer to provide custodial supervision for a lengthy period); and • the prisoner’s sentence management plan allows ongoing secondary/tertiary treatment and care to be provided at the local hospital if required.
With the advent of a single provider model under a Medical Director responsible for the overall corrections health service, some specialised services would continue to be provided centrally. Protocols would determine what secondary health services are able to be provided locally. Common policies, procedures and standards should be developed to support local prison medical services, and there should be a budget allocation to each provider for those services. The problematic split between acute and sub-acute psychiatric services would also need to be resolved once a Medical Director and the single health provider were in place.
The costs of correctional health services are likely to increase under this arrangement, particularly at MWCC. There would be some reduction in the movement of prisoners, and possible savings in cases where multiple assessments would have arisen under the existing arrangement. Medicare cover for prisoners would become an even more important issue to resolve (see section 7.5). INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 89
Recommendation 19. The Panel recommends that the Correctional Health Service move toward a single provider, under a Medical Director, with appropriate arrangements to deliver primary, secondary and tertiary medical services locally, as far as is practicable; and that the Medical Director have oversight of drug and alcohol services.
Such an arrangement will require renegotiation of the operational contracts during their term or at expiration. The Panel is encouraged to believe this is feasible since there was widespread agreement among those it consulted that the recommended health service model is the preferred one.
7.3 DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The Prisoner Healthcare Unit within Aged, Community and Mental Health in the Department of Human Services sets the standards for the provision of prison health services and monitors compliance with standards. These functions remained in DHS (rather than moving to the Department of Justice with the private prison contracts responsibility) so the Minister for Health remained responsible for prisoners’ health in line with his responsibility for the health of all Victorians. In additon, there has been an historical separation between Justice and Health to ensure good health outcomes for prisoners.
The Commissioner, Correctional Services has recently appointed a Manager Correctional Health Programs who is responsible for providing high-level correctional health policy advice to the Corrections Health Board. This has highlighted the need for DHS and Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner (OCSC) to clarify their respective roles in respect to policy advice.
There are a number of difficulties with the current organisational arrangements: • DHS has no legislative authority to undertake its monitoring of prisoner health care services. The Commissioner has the legislative responsibility for monitoring in prisons as set out in section 8A of the Corrections Act; • there is no agreed framework between DHS and the OCSC on the monitoring of prisoner health care services or policy advice; • there are no clinical health care standards for DHS to monitor prison health services against because, when the prison system was reconfigured, the Government insisted on outcome-based contracts with all inputs being defined by the prison providers. Standards, such as provision of infectious diseases testing for new prisoners, are seen as inputs not outcomes; and • DHS, through the Prisoner Healthcare Unit, has not been sufficiently resourced to fulfil both its monitoring and policy advice functions and has therefore focused primarily on monitoring.
The policy and monitoring of prisoner health care require close links with the range of other health services to ensure prisoner health remains part of the overall Victorian health system, and continues to be subject to the same rigours of monitoring and policy development as mainstream health services.
It has been suggested to the Panel that the prisoner health policy can be separated from the health monitoring functions. However, the Panel believes policy and monitoring are closely linked and must inform each other. The difficulty in leaving these functions with DHS is that DHS has not been sufficiently resourced to meet its obligations for these areas.
Transferring prisoner health care policy and monitoring to the Department of Justice would require, as an essential feature, that a separate unit be established for these functions. This would be necessary to ensure prisoner health is not compromised by custodial and correctional considerations. However, INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 90 there would still be an important requirement to ensure research and policy on emerging health issues informed correctional health needs.
Other considerations in making corrections health policy and monitoring the Department of Justice’s responsibility include ensuring that: • prisoner health services are not driven by corrections management and security considerations; • medical standards and ethical guidelines are observed by those delivering correctional health services; and • a cooperative but healthy tension is maintained between correctional officers and medical staff.
The Panel has had difficulty deciding this question of responsibility for correctional health services. There are good arguments for giving complete responsibility to DHS. However, the Panel has taken note of the status and priority that correctional health services receives in DHS. DHS has a very large range of administrative responsibilities, and health services as a whole are diverse, often controversial, and command a substantial proportion of the State’s budget. Correctional health services are a significantly greater and more important part of prison services than they are of health services.
The Correctional Services Commissioner informed the Panel that no single department has responsibility for prison health services budgets, and that there is no established formula for gaining additional resources for initiatives such as hepatitis vaccination.
On balance, the Panel is of the view that correctional health policy and monitoring should become the Department of Justice’s responsibility. The Panel believes that prisoner health issues will receive a higher priority if the Department of Justice and, particularly, the OCSC are responsible for them, given the importance of integrating health with other prisoner welfare and management issues.
The conclusion is conditional on the Government agreeing to significantly increase the allocation of resources for correctional health policy and monitoring, and on the Department giving appropriate recognition and priority to this aspect of prison services. In particular, there should be more comprehensive and regular clinical surveys of prisoner health status at each of Victoria’s prisons undertaken in conjunction with DHS.
The Department of Justice will also need to ensure there is strong liaison with appropriate officers in DHS. In part, this can be assured through a strengthened Corrections Health Board, which should oversee the new health services unit in the OCSC. Because of the concern that correctional imperatives may override health issues, it is essential that DHS provide advice on public health developments through the Corrections Health Board.
With the proposed transfer of responsibility, the Panel concludes that the Department of Justice should identify the current budget for health services in order to prepare bids for new health initiatives in correctional services.
Recommendations 20. The Panel recommends that the Department of Justice become responsible for correctional health services policy and monitoring; and that a unit within the OCSC be established for this purpose reporting directly to the Commissioner. 21. The Panel recommends that any budget bids be developed in conjunction with the Corrections Health Board that should have oversight of the new unit. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 91
7.4 THE CORRECTIONS HEALTH BOARD
Although those the Panel consulted saw the Corrections Health Board as a valuable development, there was concern that it did not have the independence to ensure the full collaboration of both the correctional and health administrations. This will be particularly important if the organisational separation continues in line with the Panel’s views. Inevitably, from time to time, tensions arise between correctional objectives and those of the health providers. These are not necessarily unhelpful and may be important in improving performance. However, the Panel sees merit in the Corrections Health Board having an independent Chair: a person of standing in the health field, but one who is not directly involved in either corrections or correctional health services.
The Panel believes that it might be advantageous to add one or two similarly independent members to the Board. Consideration, in consultation with DHS, should also be given to adding the Chief Psychiatrist to the Board.
There is also a need to raise the profile of correctional health in terms of university support. Therefore, the Panel supports an earlier proposal for the establishment of a Chair in Correctional Health at a Victorian university. This Chair would provide the clinical supervision, links into education, and research and peer support. It should improve the profile of prisoner health, assist in the recruitment and retention of staff, and enhance their training and development opportunities. Student placements with correctional health facilities and supervision of special health services should flow from such an arrangement.
Recommendations 22. The Panel recommends that the Minister for Corrections and the Minister for Health appoint three additional members to the Corrections Health Board: an independent Chairperson, and two other independent members. 23. The Panel recommends that the Department of Justice fund a Chair in Correctional Health at a Victorian university. 24. The Panel recommends that the Department of Justice seek a significant increase in resources for correctional health.
7.5 MEDICARE ELIGIBILITY
because prisoners do not have Medicare, they cannot access a range of services that may be available locally.50
Prisoners are currently not entitled to Medicare benefits. As a result they are unable to access health services in the region where the prisons are located.51
The Panel was surprised, for several reasons, to learn that prisoners were not provided with Medicare cover: • prisoners are among the most disadvantaged in terms of their health; • Medicare is understood to be Australia’s universal health cover; • prisoners, like other Australians, are presumably encouraged to maintain private health cover;
50 Submission from the Victorian Council of Social Service. 51 Submission from Beth Wilson, Health Services Commissioner. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 92
• prisoners are not exempt from taxation; for example, there is no exemption from GST for prisoner purchases (and so far no compensation for GST-imposed price increases for prisoners); and • prisoners will return to the community and to Medicare cover on release.
In the course of its consultations the Panel was made aware of prisoners who did maintain their private health cover during their confinement, and of some who underwent private medical treatment while in prison. These prisoners did not receive the benefit of Medicare rebates.
The Panel sees this issue as significant as it is unfair and not conducive to the development of correctional health services or prisoner rehabilitation.
Recommendation 25. The Panel recommends that the Minister for Corrections: (a) seek agreement from the appropriate Ministers in other States and Territories for a joint approach to the Commonwealth Minister for Health to provide Medicare cover for prisoners; and (b) seek agreement from the Minister for Health for his support for further approaches through the Health Ministerial forum to change the policy that disallows prisoners from receiving Medicare benefits.
7.6 CLINICAL AUDITS
There is no system in place within the model to review health epidemiological data on the prisoner population to assist in determining health service needs both currently and potentially in the future.52
At the time of the Panel’s investigation, a clinical audit was being undertaken of the prison health service at MWCC. The Panel believes such audits should be a regular feature of the performance monitoring of prisons. Given the complex health needs of prisoners, the Panel also considers that such audits should be undertaken by professionals with expertise in the delivery of correctional health services. It heard that Pacific Shores Health Service (the provider of health services in public prisons in Victoria) considers the involvement of correctional health professionals from other jurisdictions in its own reviews of health services has been a successful strategy.
It was also suggested to the Panel that health surveys of both female and male prisoners should be undertaken to establish benchmarks of prisoner health. The Panel understands that although establishing such benchmarks would be difficult, they would be valuable in identifying what provision for prisoner health services should be made in terms of funding, programs and clinical services.
The Panel takes the view that these benchmarks would best be developed through an initial survey or surveys of women prisoners. The number of women prisoners is, compared to men, small and their health problems appear to be more diverse. Subsequently, surveys of male prisoner health could build upon the experience gained from the audits of female prisoners.
52 Submission from Kevin Lewis, Managing Director, Australasian Correctional Management. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 93
Recommendation 26. The Panel recommends that the Commissioner, in conjunction with the Department of Human Services: (a) arrange for the conduct of a survey of the health status of female prisoners to establish a benchmark of female prisoner health; (b) undertake a survey of the health status of male prisoners in light of the experience gained in conducting the audit of the health of female prisoners; and (c) undertake further surveys of the health status of female and male prisoners every two years.
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 95
Chapter 8 Integrating Victoria’s Corrections System
The fragmentation resulting from a competitive multi-provider system is one of the worst outcomes of privatisation. If such a system remains a mechanism for overall policy and regulation of the system must be established.53
A common theme of the numerous submissions and consultations was ‘fragmentation’ of the corrections system. The Panel found that fragmentation is perceived to exist not only between public and private prison providers, but also between sub-contracted providers (health, drug and alcohol, education). This has led to a lack of continuity of care (with different prisons establishing different rules and procedures), and a lack of information sharing between prisons, and between various service providers.
This is not altogether surprising since the policy framework that established private prisons did so with the express purpose of encouraging competition between providers. This was consistent with the former Government’s policy of encouraging the public sector to compete with the private sector in delivering services to the community.
This section of the report examines the structural arrangements for managing Victoria’s prison system, and proposes some changes to existing roles and responsibilities to enhance the Department of Justice’s capacity to manage the system in a more integrated and cohesive way.
8.1 CURRENT STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENTS
The introduction of private providers of services resulted in major changes to the regulatory and management frameworks in the public sector, and the organisational arrangements that were established in government departments. The 1995 KPMG Consulting report on Correctional Services Restructuring described a number of the structural principles that were required to support the then Government’s reform agenda. These included separation of the policy/regulatory functions from service delivery, and the separation of the purchaser of a service from the service provider. A further principle contained in the KPMG report described the desirability of establishing a level playing field between public and private providers. The current structure of the Department of Justice is largely organised according to these principles.
Figure 8.1 illustrates the organisational arrangements established in April 1999. Prior to this, the Correctional Services Commissioner reported directly to the Secretary; however, under the current arrangements, the Deputy Secretary Justice Operations oversees all corrections matters as well as other portfolio responsibilities.54
53 Submission from the Eastern Suburbs Legal Service. 54 Harmsworth, Peter 1999 Into the 21st Century – Enhanced Departmental Management and Organisational Arrangements: Final Paper. Department of Justice. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 96
Figure 8.1 Organisational Structure of Correctional Services within the Department of Justice
Minister for Corrections
Secretary, Department of Justice
Deputy Secretary Justice Operations
Director, Director, CEO, Director, Commissioner, Chief Executive, Justice Policy Emergency Bureau of Emergency Victoria State Correctional Services CORE Management Policy Services Telecommunications Emergency Service
MWCC Fulham Correctional Port Phillip Prison CORE (Public) Centre Prisons
8.2 THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSIONER
VCOSS believes that the structure of the Commissioner’s Office needs to be reviewed to clarify the role of this office.55
Consistent, cohesive and integrated operation of the Victorian corrections system requires commonality and clarity of purpose. It also requires a management framework that clearly identifies the ‘head of system’, and actively promotes collaboration within the system.
The mission of the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner (OCSC) is ‘To set the direction for, and to provide leadership to, the Victorian correctional services system’. The Panel found a significant level of support for the clear identification of a ‘head of system’ role, and for this role to be allocated to the Correctional Services Commissioner.
As more fully described in section 2.4.2, the Correctional Services Commissioner is responsible for the strategic management and oversight of the Victorian correctional system including policy, planning and standards, monitoring and assessment, and sentence management.
However, the Panel found that there is a significant level of perceived ambiguity surrounding the role of the Correctional Services Commissioner. Issues highlighted in consultations centred on the need for greater clarity in relation to the respective role and responsibilities of the Correctional Services Commissioner, the Deputy Secretary Justice Operations, and the Director Justice Policy. A number of submissions to the Panel indicated, for example, a perception that there were two prison systems in Victoria: a private prison system managed by the Correctional Services Commissioner, and a public prison system managed by the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary Justice Operations.
The Panel heard that, in part, the reporting relationship of the Commissioner to the Deputy Secretary undermines the focus on the former position as ‘head of system’. However, the evidence presented to the Panel suggests that the majority of issues stem not from this, but rather from the roles and reporting relationships of the Director, Justice Policy and the Chief Executive, CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise (CORE). Both head separate business units that report directly to the Deputy Secretary and they are at the same level on the organisational chart as the Correctional Services Commissioner.
Organisational structures should be seen as evolutionary, with management arrangements designed to achieve short- and longer term priorities in a balanced manner. Roles and responsibilities change over time. While the particular structural arrangements may have once been appropriate for the policy
55 Submission from the Victorian Council of Social Service. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 97 environment, it may be time to reconsider the organisational structure and allocation of responsibilities with a view to streamlining and strengthening management arrangements.
8.2.1 The Contract Management Role
The three Prison Services Agreements require the appointment of a Contract Administrator who will be the official liaison between the Minister for Corrections and the Contractors. The Contract Administrator is also the ‘service purchaser’ within the Victorian corrections system.
In the current organisational structure, the role of Contract Administrator is allocated to the Director, Justice Policy. The focus of the corrections contract management function within this unit is on the commercial, financial and contractual arrangements that support the delivery of correctional services in Victoria. The role of the Contract Administrator is to: • identify the correctional services to be purchased by the State; • establish appropriate contractual arrangements; and • administer the contracts on behalf of the Minister for Corrections.
Clearly, the Contract Administrator must rely to a considerable degree on advice from the Correctional Services Commissioner to carry out these responsibilities. The Commissioner provides reports to the Contract Administrator concerning service providers’ performance and levels of compliance with their contracts to effect payments or to issue default notices, and remains responsible for identifying the correctional services that need to be ‘purchased’. The private prison providers expressed some confusion about the split in responsibility between the two areas.
The rationale for the current location of the contract management function is related to the strong policy principle in existence at the time that private prisons were introduced. According to this principle, the integrity of the regulatory function is best maintained by separating it from the machinations that frequently attend negotiations around contract variations and penalties.
First, it has been argued that the current separation prevents the Commissioner from being involved in prolonged and time-consuming activities related to contract negotiation. The Panel heard of a previous example of a prison’s underperformance that required the Contract Administrator’s considerable time and effort, working with an independent arbitrator, to resolve the issue of the quantum of penalty that should apply within the terms of the prison’s contract. The separation of responsibilities released the then Commissioner to focus on more immediate and critical issues. However, the Panel remains unconvinced that this could not have equally been dealt with by transferring appropriate resources to the OCSC.
Second, it has also been suggested that the separation of the Commissioner from contractual negotiations strengthens the Commissioner’s ability to maintain positive relationships with the private prison providers, particularly when there is disagreement relating to issues such as defaults or penalties. In the Panel’s view, this distinction is artificial given it is the Commissioner who provides the advice upon which such default notices are issued.
Third, it has been suggested that the continued separation of the contract management function will be a more valued feature of the current system when each of the five-year tenders are reviewed, particularly if the tender reviews involve competitive tendering by the public sector. Legal advice received by the Investigation Panel does not support that view, and raises doubts about the wisdom of the Contract Administrator leading the tender process:56
In our view, it would be relatively simple for an incumbent operator to (rightly or wrongly) allege bias on the part of the Contract Manager and such allegations are difficult to categorically refute where the parties have been in a long-term commercial relationship. If the
56 Legal advice provided by Maddock Lonie and Chisholm. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 98
State made the decision to proceed to a public tender rather than offer the Contractor a further term, there would be potential issues if the person involved in making that decision also had a significant role in selecting any new operator, assuming that the existing operator was a tenderer. In circumstances where it would not be difficult for the State to make arrangements for an impartial tender management team it would be difficult to justify why this was not done. In recent years courts have shown an increasing tendency to overturn Government tenders where there has been some lack of purity, resulting in the relevant Government being exposed to tenderer’s costs.57
On balance, the requirement for an ongoing separation of the contract management function from the Correctional Services Commissioner’s responsibilities is debatable. It is acknowledged that there needs to be a degree of separation between contract management, policy formulation and monitoring. The Panel believes this can be effected through appropriate organisational arrangements within the OCSC. A more integrated model would reduce confusion over correctional leadership responsibilities.
Recommendations 27. The Panel recommends that the contract management function be transferred from Justice Policy to the OCSC, together with the resources attached to this function. 28. The Panel recommends that any future tender process be managed outside the entirety of existing operations to ensure the utmost probity, but that experienced employees be able to provide advice to inform the process.
8.2.2 The Monitoring Role
The Corrections Act clearly allocates responsibility for monitoring to the Correctional Services Commissioner. In chapter 4, the Panel made a number of recommendations relating to the implementation of a proposed program of ongoing quality reviews of prison performance, and recommended that this function remain within the OCSC.
Although the Panel’s recommendations are based on a model in which staff are seconded from different prisons to participate in these reviews, additional staff resources will be required to develop and manage this program. As suggested in section 4.8, the Panel proposes that, in the first instance, such additional resources should be transferred from CORE to the Commissioner’s office. This would strengthen the OCSC’s ‘corrections experience’, and could achieve a better balance of staffing between the Commissioner’s office and the head office of CORE.
8.2.3 Facilities and Accommodation Services
Original responsibility for establishing the three new private prisons was vested with the New Prisons Project Team. It was responsible for developing the detailed contractual arrangements for the design and operation of the three new private prisons. Once the contracts had been let and the prisons were operational, the unit was reformed as the Major Projects Group. However, it retained a residual interest in the private prisons and undertook the yearly inspection of the physical facilities of the prisons, and coordinated the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) advice on upgrades or changes to the physical facilities within the private prisons.
Changes to personnel have meant the facilities role has settled with Justice Policy; however, the unit lacks the skills and expertise required to undertake it. For example, the unit is responsible for overall management of the current prison capacity expansion projects, but it is totally reliant upon external advice from the OCSC in relation to correctional management, specialist consultants in relation to
57 For example, see Hughes Aircraft Systems International v Airservices Australia 146 ALRRI at http://www//austlii.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/1997/5558.html INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 99 design and construction aspects, and legal advice in relation to contractual requirements. While it is imperative that such projects be managed in an integrated manner, to do so outside the OCSC undermines the Commissioner’s status as ‘head of system’.
Additionally, the process that approves upgrades of public prisons was raised with the Panel as a further example of the way in which private prisons are treated differently from the public provider. Whereas the OCSC has significant input into the development of proposals requiring capital expenditure on private prisons, CORE is able to propose and have approved capital expenditure on the public prisons (for example, security upgrades) without any reference to the Correctional Services Commissioner.
It became clear to the Panel during the course of its investigations that a major challenge is the need to address the prison system’s future infrastructure requirements. The Commissioner’s Office is currently involved in managing a number of projects in this area. A new 10-Year Facilities Masterplan is being developed, as are revised standards for cell design (to take account of the Coroner’s findings in respect of deaths in custody). A project to address issues of fire safety in prison buildings has commenced. In light of these initiatives, the Panel believes there is a need for additional expertise to be available in the Commissioner’s Office.
Recommendations 29. The Panel recommends that the Secretary Department of Justice create and fund a senior facilities position within the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner to provide ongoing advice on, and review of, prison facilities strategic planning. 30. The Panel recommends that infrastructure development proposals for public prisons be reviewed against an overall facilities MasterPlan in the same way as private prisons.
8.2.4 Reporting Relationships Between OCSC and Providers
The Panel heard that the current reporting arrangements are unclear and favour the public provider, which reports directly to the Deputy Secretary Justice Operations. The private providers felt CORE ought to report through the OCSC on day-to-day issues in the same way as they are required to.
CORE has a board (intended to be somewhat equivalent to the company boards of the private providers). However, the CORE Board comprises only the Secretary and Deputy Secretary Justice Operations. In the Panel’s view, this gives an impression of preferential treatment to the public provider. As CORE has direct access to the head of the Department, it can effectively bypass the Commissioner.
The Panel supports the arrangement where the public provider has a board to oversee its management. In the Panel’s view, the Secretary of the Department should not be on that board, but it should be enlarged (as the Department proposes) to include two or three non-departmental people who have experience and expertise likely to be of value to correctional services.
To clarify reporting relationships, the Panel believes that CORE should continue to report to its board in the same way as each of the private providers report to their respective boards. In respect to the Commissioner, CORE’s position and that of the prisons it represents should be no different from that of the private prison operators. There should be no doubt that the Correctional Services Commissioner is the head of the prisons system that includes public as well as private prisons. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 100
Recommendation 31. The Panel recommends that the Board of CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise comprise up to five members; the Deputy Secretary Justice Operations and at least two or three non- departmental members.
8.2.5 Resourcing Issues
The Panel was advised that CORE’s corporate head office is significantly larger than that of any of the three private providers, and broadly equivalent to that of the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner. This level of corporate resources enables CORE to undertake a number of responsibilities that may more properly belong to the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner (such as responsibility for policy development of the statewide Sex Offenders’ Strategy). This gives CORE a public and corporate profile that the OCSC does not have the resources to achieve, and is a constant source of tension between the two organisations.
In contrast, it was suggested to the Panel that the OCSC was underresourced given the dynamic and complex nature of the corrections environment, and the diverse range of activities for which it is responsible. This had led to a situation where a great many projects have been commenced but very few seem to have been concluded. The Panel heard this was because the OCSC had had to adopt a ‘fire-fighting’ role. Staff reported feeling very frustrated because no sooner had they begun work on a project than a crisis occurred and they were diverted to a new set of priorities.
It was also suggested that the location within CORE of a number of functions and units that appear to duplicate those within the OCSC undermines the standing of the Commissioner’s office. The Panel noted that the resources available to CORE have enabled it to be proactive in the strategic development and management of its correctional services. The allocation of resources to the OCSC and CORE needs to be reconsidered in light of both organisations’ ongoing responsibilities to avoid duplication of functions.
The resourcing arrangements appear to stem from the planned need for CORE to retain sufficient expertise to enable it to operate, and indeed ‘compete’, as a Statutory Authority. It is no longer intended that CORE should move to this form of organisation. Nevertheless, given CORE’s significant operational expertise, the Panel agrees that it is desirable that CORE retain a certain capability to provide essential services (such as the capacity to deal with emergencies) whether in public or private prisons.
Recommendation 32. The Panel recommends that the Secretary Department of Justice, the Correctional Services Commissioner and the proposed Board of CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise, review the allocation of staff between the OCSC and CORE to minimise duplication of functions and resources.
8.2.6 Re-Establishing the Role of Deputy Commissioner
An important issue raised with the Panel related to the extent of involvement of the OCSC in operational issues.
The current organisational arrangements were intended to separate the roles of purchaser from provider, and transfer the ‘risk’ associated with day-to-day operations to the operator. The OCSC was intended to remain at arm’s length from operational concerns. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 101
Clearly, the State retains overall responsibility for the security, safety and welfare of all prisoners, and for the maintenance of standards in all prisons, both public and private. The OCSC is directly responsible for exercising the State’s duty of care through the sentence management function. The Commissioner is also responsible for endorsing each Operator’s Operating Manual, and for authorising individual staff to perform the duties of a prison officer.
The Panel believes that the position of Deputy Commissioner (abolished in 1999 as part of the new Labor Government’s Executive Officer reductions) needs to be re-established. The appointment of a chief operational officer would release the Commissioner from the range of tasks that presently occupy much of her time, and would contribute to the separation of the policy, standards, monitoring and contract administration functions from day-to-day operational responsibilities.
In addition, the Panel supports the need for the Deputy Commissioner to undertake the essential role of establishing effective networks to facilitate system-wide collaboration and integration. Responsibilities in this regard might include: • conducting regular meetings of staff across the prison system (for example, programs staff); • chairing the regular Providers’ Forum (although the Panel noted that this forum requires review to ensure its ongoing relevance); • facilitating committees that deal with operational issues (such as the Chaplains Advisory Committee); and • providing a mechanism for feedback between the operational and non-operational aspects of the OCSC’s activities.
Recommendation 33. The Panel recommends that the Secretary Department of Justice create and fund a position of Deputy Commissioner within the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner to assume responsibility for managing operational issues where the OCSC needs to be involved.
8.2.7 Strengthening the Commissioner’s Role
The Panel is of the view that a number of relatively simple steps should be taken to reinforce the Commissioner’s role as ‘head of system’, for example: • the role and responsibilities of the position should be more clearly described in legislation; • the Commissioner should chair committees, boards and meetings that discuss the current and/or future provision of correctional services (for example, quarterly and annual performance meetings); • the level of the OCSC’s resourcing should enable it to be proactive in identifying and addressing issues, in planning, and in policy development; and • the skills base of OCSC staff should include an appropriate balance between broad policy development and specific correctional (operational) expertise.
The Corrections Act should prescribe the powers and functions of the Commissioner in relation to the operation of private and public prisons. The Act leaves no doubt about the Commissioner’s right and responsibility to intervene where there are threats to the fulfilment of the Minister’s duty of care. However, the Panel believes the Commissioner’s role and responsibilities should be described in the legislation. If the distinction between the Commissioner’s responsibilities (as enlarged by the recommendations in this report) for the organisation and oversight of prisons, and the Contract Administrator’s responsibilities are to continue, the Act should specify both roles. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 102
Recommendation 34. The Panel recommends that the Secretary, Department of Justice develop clear statements of roles, responsibilities and reporting relationships for all key players in the corrections system. These statements should reinforce strongly the view that the Commissioner is unambiguously the ‘head of system’ for corrections in Victoria, and that should be incorporated into the Corrections Act 1986.
8.3 PLANNING AND RESEARCH
The Auditor-General reported that: a key ingredient for the satisfactory management of prisoner management functions is that, as far as possible, the prison system will have the capacity to receive the number of prisoners entering the system and to place new prisoners in a manner consistent with the assessments completed by the SMU.58
The private prison operators, like the public sector prisons, have struggled to implement long-term strategic prisoner management initiatives in the face of changes to prisoner profiles and numbers. Many of these difficulties have arisen because, for a number of years, strategic planning for Victorian prisons received much less attention than the tasks associated with managing prisoners and constructing prisons. Very limited attention was directed to future planning or research.
It is important that a comprehensive approach to future planning be undertaken. This means projections of future capacity requirements need to go beyond a simple estimate of total numbers. To the extent possible, research and analysis should provide an indication of the future profile of prisoners to inform longer term developments in prisoner classification and case management practices, as well as the location and the kinds of facilities required.
The prison system’s current capacity problems are, in part at least, a result of failures of the planning model. Many prisons must now accommodate a substantially different profile of prisoners than they were originally designed for, and this explains why the private and public sector operators have struggled to maintain a seamless approach to prisoner management and their progress through the Victorian prison system.
8.3.1 Prisoner Projections
The Panel noted that the OCSC is currently preparing forecasts of numbers of male and female prisoners. Such forecasts are an imperative for proper system planning.
As outlined above, projections of total prisoner numbers are of limited value in determining prisoner profiles which, in turn, determine the nature of accommodation and program requirements. The Commissioner’s Office lacks sufficient statistical resources to conduct such analysis and, even if such resources were available, the Panel was advised much of the necessary data does not exist in a format that can be easily extracted.
Effective planning must also take into account the impact of changes across the whole criminal justice system. In that respect, the OCSC appears to have benefited little, if at all, from association with the larger Department of Justice. The Panel noted that projections and analysis of prisoner numbers exclude the numbers of prisoners accommodated in police cells. A separate set of projections is undertaken for offenders subject to Community Correctional dispositions. The Department of Human Services also undertakes projections in relation to the Senior Youth Training Centre population. Potentially, this could result in two separate sets of scenarios being developed for offending and sentencing patterns that are applied to the same group of offenders. There are also questions of the
58 Auditor-General of Victoria, op. cit. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 103 impact of measures intended to divert offenders from prison into other corrective facilities or programs.
The Panel believes there is merit in undertaking joint projections encompassing all adult offenders, and in developing a model or models to forecast the impact of a number of variables at different stages of the criminal justice system.
8.3.2 System-Wide Facilities Planning
A new 10-year Facilities Masterplan being developed by the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner will guide the capital development and consolidation of the Victorian prison system. The plan will provide a strategic response to existing and continuing growth in demand for prison capacity, and will incorporate policy and program requirements for custodial infrastructure. It is important that this Plan consider not only the overall capacity needs of the system, but also develops a longer term strategic framework which takes account of the role of individual prisons within it.
Contribution to the development of the masterplan is being sought from a wide range of stakeholders by the initial use of a questionnaire. Consultation on the plan has been limited by a desire not to have the process overly influenced by the prison operators. The Panel believes limiting the operators’ involvement in this way may be counterproductive. While the OCSC must be seen to be leading the planning process, prison operators have a contribution to make, particularly in respect of the most effective use of existing infrastructure given operational requirements, and the needs of different prisoner groups.
Recommendations 35. The Panel recommends that forecasts of prisoner numbers be undertaken annually by the OCSC, with separate projections for male and female prisoners; that the OCSC track progress against projections on at least a quarterly basis; and that the OCSC undertake analysis of the reasons for significant variances between projections and actual numbers. 36. The Panel recommends that, in developing the Masterplan for the Victorian prison system, the OCSC seek advice from prison operators regarding operational requirements and the likely impacts of any proposed changes. 37. The Panel recommends that the initial Masterplan be completed by the OCSC by the end of 2000 and reviewed and updated six-monthly after that.
8.3.3 Developing a Research Capacity for the Correctional Services System
One of the striking features of the correctional services system in Victoria, in contrast with other systems, is the paucity of individuals or organisations conducting research in the area of criminal justice.
One notable exception is the Australian Institute of Criminology, a Commonwealth statutory authority established in 1973 and located in Canberra. The Institute provides a national focus for the study of crime and criminal justice in Australia, and for the dissemination of criminal justice information. Its published papers and conference proceedings bring together a broad range of research on criminal justice issues including strategic planning, crime prevention, juvenile justice, rates of crime, deaths in custody and the court system. Under the terms of the Criminology Research Act 1971, its focus is on research from an Australia-wide perspective.
In some other countries, research is a function of the relevant government department responsible for that country’s criminal justice system. This is the case, for example, in Canada where Correctional Services Canada has established a Research Department within the organisation that funds and manages research projects according to agreed annual priorities. Priority themes for the 2000–2001 INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 104 research program include offender profile and needs, impact of programs and/or professional intervention on risk management and reintegration, overview of offenders’ state of health and needs in this regard, the architectural design of the penitentiary of tomorrow, and energy consumption. The program is conducted in partnership and/or collaboration with several Canadian universities.
Such research has the potential to make a significant contribution to policy development and to support improvements in the effectiveness of correctional services (for example, in respect of recidivism). It can also play an important role in expanding public awareness of the issues that influence the correctional environment.
The Panel is aware that the establishment of a dedicated research unit within the Department of Justice may not be the most effective model for developing a research capacity for correctional services, nor the most appropriate model in an environment of limited resources. It notes that although such units have existed in other departments at other times, they have an alarming tendency to disappear when operational pressures mount.
Nonetheless, the Panel believes the development of a strong correctional research capacity within Victoria is very desirable. It proposes that the Department of Justice contribute funding for the establishment of a Correctional Research Institute in association with a Victorian university or universities.
It is suggested that the Deputy Secretary Justice Operations, in consultation with key stakeholders in the system, be responsible for the development and management of the research tender, together with the establishment of priorities for research.
Recommendation 38. The Panel recommends that the Department of Justice allocate funding and call for tenders from Victorian universities for the establishment of a Correctional Research Institute. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 105
Chapter 9 Summary and Conclusion
I am not for or against private prisons; all I ask and expect is to be treated as a human being. And for the management of whatever prison I am placed in to be held accountable for their own actions as I am for mine.59
Central to this report is the Investigation Panel’s strongly held view that the quality of the overall service to prisoners and the community matters more than who manages the prison.
The Panel has not seen its task as addressing every problem of the current system, and has endeavoured to limit its recommendations to those issues it believes are critical to the future delivery of prison services in Victoria. These recommendations focus on measures that the Investigation Panel considers will enhance the cohesiveness of the prison system. The future focus should be on collaboration rather than competition, and on promoting the notion of a correctional services system rather than a correctional industry.
The Panel recognises that Victoria’s prison system is in the midst of a period of transition. The introduction of a multi-provider environment presents substantial challenges for managing this system. It acknowledges that the introduction of private prison providers has limited the Government’s ability to introduce speedy policy changes because of the need for each change to be agreed through an often complicated and lengthy process of contract negotiation. Nevertheless, the Panel has concluded that the quality of correctional services is more strongly influenced by systemic issues than by the private prison providers’ operations per se.
The limitations of contractual arrangements are well known. As the Panel and others have noted, service delivery in private prisons is, to a large degree, determined by the clarity with which the requirements of the Prison Services Agreement with each private prison operator specify the standards required, and the degree to which they enable evaluation of an individual prison’s performance. The current contracts do neither of these well. The Investigation Panel broadly supports the work done by KPMG Consulting and the proposed changes to the regime of Service Delivery Outcomes suggested in its report. The Panel has also made a number of recommendations regarding the need for greater clarity and specificity in the Correctional Policy and Management Standards.
To support these changes, the Panel has also proposed that a number of amendments need to be made to the Corrections Act 1986 so that the roles and responsibilities of the Commissioner are more clearly specified in legislation. The duty of care that the Government owes to State prisoners cannot be abrogated by contracting out the operation of correctional institutions, so changes to the legislation to reinforce the private prison operators’ duty of care responsibilities are also proposed.
Although the recommended changes should improve the contractual framework, the Panel has concluded that even the best of contracts will neither provide sufficient safeguards against poor operational performance, nor incentives for innovation. Consequently, the Panel has recommended the introduction of a program of quality reviews based on the principles of a ‘healthy prison’. To encourage a more collaborative culture and a greater focus on processes that lead to organisational learning, it is proposed that these reviews should involve custodial staff from across the prison system as well as from the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner. Their aim is to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the overall performance of each individual prison, including the quality
59 Prisoner, Fulham Correctional Centre INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 106 of its management and the effectiveness of its correctional services. The Investigation Panel believes reports from these reviews should be publicly available.
A major focus of submissions to the Investigation Panel has been the fragmentation of the corrections system at all levels. This is most apparent in the way health services are provided to prisoners. Consequently, the Panel has recommended the introduction of a new model for health care that should reduce the number of prisoner movements occurring under the current model that are so disruptive to prisoners’ physical and emotional wellbeing. Fragmentation also results from the lack of specificity in correctional standards so prisoners are often frustrated by inconsistencies in approach to such issues as how much property they can have and what sorts of items are available for purchase in different prisons. The Panel has made a number of recommendations in this regard.
Inadequacies in prison programs, particularly in preparation for release, have been highlighted in submissions to the Panel. Community-based organisations have an important role in correctional services. They provide prisoners with contacts and access to services they may be able to continue to use after their release and, as such, have a significant role to play in assisting prisoners to reintegrate into the community. The Panel has noted the need for improvements in integrating the work of non- government agencies and voluntary organisations into prisons’ operations.
The Investigation Panel’s significant concerns regarding the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre’s operations are mentioned throughout the report and in the Postscript to this report.
In terms of the other two private prisons, the Panel considers a number of the programs and practices being established at Fulham and Port Phillip deserve recognition.
Port Phillip is a very difficult prison to manage, particularly given the profile of its prisoners and the substantial increase in prisoner movements at the prison (mainly to and from hospital and court). The Panel was encouraged by the processes the prison has introduced to improve the practical and consistent application of procedures for the care of prisoners. A number of quality program initiatives were also noted, including the prisoner peer support scheme that involves prisoners being trained to support other prisoners as ‘Prisoner Listeners’, as peer educators in the Youth Unit, and as ‘stabilisers’ in the Intellectual Disability Services Unit.
The Panel also received a number of positive submissions about Fulham Correctional Centre’s operations: As members of the FCCAG my colleagues and I are privy to a good deal of what goes on at Fulham and what life ‘on the inside’ is really like. The present arrangements in regard to security management, safety for prisoners, staff and visitors seems more than adequate, and the facilities at the prison, to me, seem quite superb.60
The Panel was encouraged to hear of a number of examples of good correctional practices being developed at Fulham, including the programs to prepare prisoners for reintegration into society, the Prisoner Listener program, and the establishment of culturally-appropriate programs for Indochinese prisoners.
CONCLUSION
The Investigation Panel believes it is now time for the correctional services system to move on. It is important for the future focus to be on measures that support the evolution of one prison system for Victoria, rather than on maintaining an artificial distinction between the public prison system and the private system. In a fragmented system, it is prisoners who suffer most.
60 Submission from Jim Pennell, Member Fulham Correctional Centre Advisory Group INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 107
The Panel fully supports the views expressed in the submission from Group 4 Securitas: The adversarial purchaser/provider relationship that traditionally (even necessarily) exists in many government contracts, is an inappropriate way of obtaining best value in the area of corrections. We envisage a closer partnership, but one that leaves uncompromised the OCSC’s ability to ensure, and when necessary to enforce, compliance.
The Investigation Panel believes implementation of its recommendations, particularly those relating to the way performance is monitored, changes to the health model and in the provision of programs, will reinforce the work already in progress in the Commissioner’s Office, substantially improve the cohesiveness in the way correctional services are delivered in Victoria, and restore Victoria’s correctional services as the nation’s best.
No-one has devised a perfect prisons system. It is an organic process and will continue to require changes and identify new needs.61
61 Haemeyer, A., op. cit.
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 109
Postscript – Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre
It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, so long as it catches mice
After the completion of the Panel’s investigation, but before its report was finalised, the Government intervened to take control of the operations of the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre (MWCC).
The Investigation Panel has viewed the report from the Correctional Services Commissioner and found that many of the observations in that report are consistent with observations made by members of the Investigation Panel in respect of MWCC. The findings of the Panel in relation to MWCC are set out below.
The Panel’s Findings
The Panel visited MWCC on four occasions during the course of its investigations. It was left with a clear impression that management of the prison fell well short of the Panel’s expectations, a view confirmed in discussions and reflected in numerous submissions.
The Deer Park facility faces particular challenges because of its built environment. It is, effectively, the only female prison in the State and must house low, medium and high security prisoners as well as providing for a protection population. Even accepting these challenges prisoner safety at Deer Park facility is at an unacceptably low level. Incidents of violence and intimidation are rife.62
It was clear prisoners, and in some cases visitors, did not feel safe within the prison. Although individual correctional officers appeared competent, the prison atmosphere in general did not give the impression that staff were in control. This contributed to a large number of protection prisoners, restrictions on regimes and prisoner movements, a significant level of inactivity as prisoners were locked in their accommodation units, and a reluctance by some non-government organisations and individuals to enter the prison to provide services.
This impression of the lack of safety at the prison permeated all key areas of prison operations: the lack of confidence of staff in dealing with prisoners, the restrictions on access to programs, frustrations with the visits program, and the inadequacy of the health service. Each of the issues contributed to and was, in turn, reinforced by the lack of effective prisoner management.
Although many of these issues were previously identified in other reports, and indeed led to the issuing of three default notices, there did not appear to be any urgency in bringing about the required changes on the part of the prison Operator.
62 Submission from Richard Bourke, Secretary, Criminal Bar Association. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 110
Relationships Between Management, Staff and Prisoners
Prior to the appointment of the most recent Manager, a weekly meeting of prison staff and service providers within the prison occurred. This has not taken place for seven months and has contributed to problems in the coordination and profile of services.63
Since its commissioning only four years ago, there have been numerous changes of senior management at the Prison. There have been four General Managers, a high turnover within the management team, and a high level of turnover of custodial staff, particularly in the first year of operation. The Panel heard that this instability in the management structure had led to constant changes in the regimes governing the women’s lives in the prison.
When this is combined with an inconsistent application of the rules and an inability to access the operating manual, the result is women held under arbitrary, capricious and unknown rules.64
Communication between management and staff, and between staff and prisoners, was a matter of considerable concern to the Panel. Staff reported a widening gap between themselves and management, with few opportunities for dialogue. Staff told the Panel that communication was ‘mainly by memorandum’.
The lack of experience and expertise, and the limitations in relation to staff training and development, resulted in staff who appeared to lack confidence in themselves, in each other, and in management. Staff said they felt ‘bunkered and isolated’. This culture of blame had been compounded by constant media and public scrutiny. Rumours regarding the possible future of the prison had abounded for several months and contributed to an overall sense of uncertainty.
Correctional Programs
A number of issues relating to the provision of appropriate prisoner programs were raised with the Panel including: • inadequate or inappropriate physical facilities, resulting in individual counselling sessions taking place in open areas of the prison; • limited access by protection prisoners to programs, particularly education; • lack of programs for prisoners in the management unit; • frustration at the lengthy waiting lists for certain programs, which limited access by prisoners serving short sentences; • no evidence that there had been a comprehensive exercise to scope the needs of women prisoners (including their education and vocational needs), or that programs had been designed taking such needs into account; • absence of activities, including education and recreation, in the evenings and at weekends; • lack of evaluation of the effectiveness of programs; and • problems with lawyers gaining access.
On some occasions professional visits have resulted in whole units being locked down in order to release staff to supervise the visit. The requirement of notice is inconsistent with the availability of many lawyers who must find time for visits during the day around court commitments, which are frequently unpredictable.65
63 Submission from the Reverend Ray Cleary, Melbourne Citymission. 64 Submission from Federation of Community Legal Centres. 65 Submission from Richard Bourke, Secretary, Criminal Bar Association. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 111
The Panel was also concerned about the adequacy of drug and alcohol programs. Little effort appeared to have been made to encourage women to participate in such programs in a prison known to have a very high proportion of prisoners with substance abuse problems. MWCC has a special 10-bed unit dedicated to an intensive drug rehabilitation program; however, there were only six female prisoners undertaking the program at the time of the Panel’s visits. The Panel was informed that there was a proposal to move the program to a smaller accommodation unit because of the few women participating in the program, but there was no strategy to increase participation in this much needed program.
Health Service Provision at MWCC
Since the prison commenced operation in August 1996, there have been four providers of health services at MWCC.
A number of specific issues and allegations have been raised in previous inquiries, and were again highlighted in submissions to the Panel. These included: • allegations of over-medication of women prisoners for management reasons; • constant changes of times at which medication is issued; • unavailability of custodial staff to escort prisoners to the medical centre and to access external medical treatment; • limited access to psychiatric professionals; and • employment of male nurses in the medical centre.
Particular problems arise for women at Tarrengower who place their health at risk by refusing medical treatment when that treatment necessitates a return to MWCC.
On 20 and 21 July 2000, Associate Professor Peter Doherty, Dr John Sharman and Dr Anne Mijeh conducted a clinical audit of MWCC’s health services. The results were made available to the Panel during the preparation of its report.
The audit team did not conclude that prisoners at MWCC were over-medicated, but among its findings were: • many examples where the initial assessment of risk was not followed by ongoing reviews, clinical issues that were identified were not adequately followed up, and ‘at risk’ prisoners had no comprehensive management plans developed; • data on the prevalence of individual health issues, use of the health service, outcome data and other relevant information were not available; • critical incident reviews and a multidisciplinary approach to the assessment, review and management of health issues were not present; and • the health service was understaffed and underresourced.
The audit team made a number of recommendations to Corrections Corporation of Australia to improve the health services at MWCC. The Investigation Panel would want to add to those recommendations the recommendation for a health survey of women prisoners to establish benchmarks for their health services (see Recommendation 42). INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 112
Family Contact
The importance of maintaining contact with families cannot be underestimated. For women prisoners who are also mothers, contact with their children is critical to their morale and to prospects of rehabilitation.
Prisoners at MWCC, particularly those in the protection unit, reported a number of frustrations with the visits program. The main concern raised with the Investigation Panel related to visitors being kept waiting for lengthy periods as a result of the clearance procedures and/or the availability of a custodial officer to escort prisoners to the visit centre. The lack of suitable processing and waiting areas at the front gate, and the inaccessibility of the prison by public transport, were also raised.
The experience of imprisonment only serves to reinforce the marginalisation of these women and creates maximum disruption in their lives and those of their families. Most women lose their housing and possessions when they enter prison, and for those with children there is a significant emotional toll for them and their families.66
Given the importance of maintaining contact with family and friends, the new management team needs, as a matter of urgency, to improve arrangements for prisoner liaison with their families and operation of the visits program.
66 Submission from the Reverend Ray Cleary, Melbourne Citymission. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 113
Summary of Recommendations
Chapter 1 – Introduction sets out the terms of reference of the investigation, and provides an overview of the emerging gains and issues arising from the delivery of prison services by private providers in Victoria.
Chapter 2 – The Corrections System in Victoria: An Overview provides background regarding the structure and scope of the prison system.
Chapter 3 – The Contractual Arrangements examines the scope for streamlining and simplifying contractual management arrangements, and the flexibility that the contracts provide for addressing changes to requirements or resolving performance issues.
Rec 1. The Panel recommends that the duties of care owed by the contractor to the State and to the prisoners in their care should continue in unfettered form and be protected by an appropriate amendment to the Corrections Act 1986.
Rec 2. The Panel recommends that the Minister for Corrections amend the provisions of the Prison Services Agreements to: (a) provide for the issue of a default notice in any case where there is a breach of the Contractor’s obligations under the contract or of those imposed by law; and (b) ensure that the Secretary, Department of Justice, or an officer nominated by the Secretary, is involved in the process of selection of a General Manager/Director of a private prison.
Rec 3. The Panel recommends that the Minister for Corrections amend the Prison Services Agreements relating to Fulham Correctional Centre and Port Phillip Prison to include an indemnity clause similar to clause 71 in the Prison Services Agreement for the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre.
Rec 4. The Panel recommends that the Minister for Corrections call for fresh tenders for the operation of the private prisons whenever there is an opportunity to do so.
Chapter 4 – Monitoring Performance examines the adequacy of current mechanisms to assess how well each prison is performing, and proposes a framework of qualitative reviews.
Rec 5. The Panel recommends that the OCSC review the Correctional Management and Policy Standards for Prisons to enhance the extent to which they support the application of consistent practices and procedures for prisoners. The review should examine the extent to which the Standards can support an evaluation of the quality of service provision.
Rec 6. The Panel recommends that the OCSC develop a model of quality service provision based on a set of characteristics of a ‘healthy prison’.
Rec 7. The Panel recommends that the OCSC refine its current performance management framework to include qualitative and quantitative measures of performance that encompass input, process, output and outcome evaluation. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 114
Rec 8. The Panel recommends that the OCSC review the system of service provider reports and audit trails to ensure only relevant data are collected, and to avoid duplication of effort.
Rec 9. The Panel recommends that the Correctional Services Commissioner ensure the Monitoring and Review Unit within the OCSC establishes a schedule of quality reviews (as described in this report) for all prisons; and that these quality reviews be undertaken by teams that include personnel seconded from providers and professionals representing other disciplines or services where appropriate, commencing from 1 January 2001.
Rec 10. The Panel recommends that the Secretary, Department of Justice identifies and oversees the transfer of appropriate staff from CORE to the OCSC to support the proposed program of quality reviews.
Rec 11. The Panel recommends that the Correctional Services Commissioner: (a) develops and implements a communication strategy that includes making information available to the public about the performance of Victoria’s prisons; and (b) reports at least annually on the activities of the corrections system in Victoria.
Chapter 5 – Staffing discusses issues relating to the recruitment, selection and training of staff as well as staffing models currently operating in the three private prisons.
Rec 12. The Panel recommends that the OCSC develop a personnel manual that sets out uniform standards for recruitment policy and procedures in Victoria’s prison system.
Rec 13. The Panel recommends that the Correctional Services Commissioner support the implementation of the traineeship model across all Victorian prison providers.
Rec 14. The Panel recommends that the OCSC, in consultation with prison operators, develop criteria and standards for assessment of training.
Rec 15. The Panel recommends that the OCSC establish a Custodial Officer Education and Training Advisory Committee, consisting of a management and a training representative from each prison provider, meet at least twice each year to assess, review and make recommendations on all training issues.
Rec 16. The Panel recommends that the proposed Custodial Officer Education and Training Advisory Committee investigate the feasibility of requiring that staff promoted to management positions have as a basic qualification a Diploma in Correctional Administration/Frontline Management or Diploma in Criminology (Prison Studies) or equivalent, by the year 2005.
Chapter 6 – Managing Prisons and Prisoners examines a number of key aspects of prisoner management and makes recommendations for changes aimed at improving the effectiveness of correctional programs, and promoting cohesiveness across the correctional services system.
Rec 17. The Panel recommends that the OCSC model of Differentiated Case Management be introduced across all levels of prison operation.
Rec 18. The Panel recommends that the OCSC undertake an early review of the structure and content of prisoners’ Individual Management Plan files for the purpose of establishing a revised file management framework. This should include consideration of electronically automating the system of recording, maintaining and transferring prisoner records. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 115
Rec 19. The Panel recommends that the OCSC amend current schedules within the context of the structured day to enable a more flexible mix of work, education and other structured programs based on the needs of the prisoner, as identified in their Individual Management Plan.
Rec 20. The Panel recommends that the Australian Vice-Chancellors Committee, in consultation with the Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, develop a consistent policy of higher education provision for adult prisoners. This could include the recognition of tertiary-enrolled adult prisoners as belonging to a category of educationally disadvantaged students, the allocation of university equity funding to provide tutor visits, and the development of standardised pathways to enhance opportunities for prisoners to access higher education.
Rec 21. The Panel recommends that the Department of Education, Employment and Training and the Department of Justice: (a) jointly support, through the budgetary process, increased funding of the education and training of prisoners in both public and private prisons; and (b) strongly pursue the proposals before the Drugs Policy, Crime Prevention and Corrections Cabinet Sub-Committee with a view to introduction of the proposed reforms by 2001.
Rec 22. The Panel recommends that the Department of Education, Employment and Training ensure, in future, that the price paid for the delivery of corrections education and training does not discriminate between public and private prisons.
Rec 23. The Panel recommends that education and training programs for women have a focus on life skills, self-management skills and self-esteem and that this be reflected in the planning and advice of the Corrections Industry Training Board.
Rec 24. The Panel recommends that the OCSC require the providers of all drug treatment programs to develop comprehensive evaluation components that are to be built into the program design, and ensure results are continually monitored to determine their effectiveness and changing treatment trends.
Rec 25. The Panel recommends that OCSC require that drug and alcohol programs include individual tailored relapse prevention plans that identify ‘high-risk’ situations and factors that assist the individual prisoner to develop effective coping mechanisms to reduce the recurrence of drug use.
Rec 26. The Panel recommends that the OCSC develop a plan, in consultation with non-government organisations, for the involvement of appropriate non-government organisations in the delivery of pre-release programs and provision of post-release support for prisoners.
Rec 27. The Panel recommends that the Minister seek additional funding to be provided for the delivery of post-release programs by non-government organisations.
Rec 28. The Panel recommends that the OCSC undertake an analysis of the specific knowledge, skills, mix of experience and attitudes required for effective management of women prisoners; that the results of this analysis be incorporated into staff training standards relating to women’s prisons; and that initial training and ongoing development for staff working with women prisoners be tailored to include modules specific to the needs of women prisoners and effective strategies for working with them.
Rec 29. The Panel recommends that the OCSC continue to support the Official Visitors Program. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 116
Rec 30. The Panel recommends that the OCSC undertake a review of chaplaincy services to identify any initiatives that could be taken to strengthen these services for prisoners.
Rec 31. The Panel recommends that the Department of Justice establish and fund a Prisoners’ Legal Service attached to, or in association with, an existing Community Legal Centre.
Rec 32. The Panel recommends that research into the impact of overcrowding be a priority project to be undertaken by the proposed Correctional Research Institute.
Rec 33. The Panel recommends that the Minister for Corrections: (a) contacts Telstra to seek agreement for a reduction in the telephone costs for Victorian prisoners; (b) seek agreement from the appropriate Ministers in other States and Territories for a joint approach to Telstra regarding changes to the conditions under which Telstra operates the Arunta Telephone System such that costs of prisoner telephone calls are reduced; and (c) seek agreement from the Commonwealth Minister for Communications for his support for further approaches through the Corrections Ministerial forum to change the conditions under which Telstra operates the Arunta Telephone System such that costs of prisoner telephone calls are reduced.
Rec 34. The Panel recommends that the Prison Fire and Safety Advisory Group be reconvened.
Chapter 7 – Health Services considers the provision of health services to prisoners which, along with safety and security, is central to their care and can make a major contribution to humane treatment and the orderly management of prisons.
Rec 35. The Panel recommends that the Correctional Health Service move toward a single provider, under a Medical Director, with appropriate arrangements to deliver primary, secondary and tertiary medical services locally, as far as is practicable; and that the Medical Director have oversight of drug and alcohol services.
Rec 36. The Panel recommends that the Department of Justice become responsible for correctional health services policy and monitoring; and that a unit within the OCSC be established for this purpose reporting directly to the Commissioner.
Rec 37. The Panel recommends that any budget bids be developed in conjunction with the Corrections Health Board that should have oversight of the new unit.
Rec 38. The Panel recommends that the Minister for Corrections and the Minister for Health appoint three additional members to the Corrections Health Board: an independent Chairperson, and two other independent members.
Rec 39. The Panel recommends that the Department of Justice fund a Chair in Correctional Health at a Victorian university.
Rec 40. The Panel recommends that the Department of Justice seek a significant increase in resources for correctional health.
Rec 41. The Panel recommends that the Minister for Corrections: (a) seek agreement from the appropriate Ministers in other States and Territories for a joint approach to the Commonwealth Minister for Health to provide Medicare cover for prisoners; and INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 117
(b) seek agreement from the Minister for Health for his support for further approaches through the Health Ministerial forum to change the policy that disallows prisoners from receiving Medicare benefits.
Rec 42. The Panel recommends that the Commissioner, in conjunction with the Department of Human Services: (a) arrange for the conduct of a survey of the health status of female prisoners to establish a benchmark of female prisoner health; (b) undertake a survey of the health status of male prisoners in light of the experience gained in conducting the audit of the health of female prisoners; and (c) undertake further surveys of the health status of female and male prisoners every two years.
Chapter 8 – Integrating Victoria’s Corrections System examines the structural arrangements for managing Victoria’s prison system, and proposes some changes to existing roles and responsibilities to enhance the Department of Justice’s capacity to manage the system in a more integrated and cohesive way.
Rec 43. The Panel recommends that the contract management function be transferred from Justice Policy to the OCSC, together with the resources attached to this function.
Rec 44. The Panel recommends that any future tender process be managed outside the entirety of existing operations to ensure the utmost probity, but that experienced employees be able to provide advice to inform the process.
Rec 45. The Panel recommends that the Secretary Department of Justice create and fund a senior facilities position within the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner to provide ongoing advice on, and review of, prison facilities strategic planning.
Rec 46. The Panel recommends that infrastructure development proposals for public prisons be reviewed against an overall facilities MasterPlan in the same way as private prisons.
Rec 47. The Panel recommends that the Board of CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise comprise up to five members; the Deputy Secretary Justice Operations and at least two or three non-departmental members.
Rec 48. The Panel recommends that the Secretary Department of Justice, the Correctional Services Commissioner and the proposed Board of CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise, review the allocation of staff between the OCSC and CORE to minimise duplication of functions and resources.
Rec 49. The Panel recommends that the Secretary Department of Justice create and fund a position of Deputy Commissioner within the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner to assume responsibility for managing operational issues where the OCSC needs to be involved.
Rec 50. The Panel recommends that the Secretary, Department of Justice develop clear statements of roles, responsibilities and reporting relationships for all key players in the corrections system. These statements should reinforce strongly the view that the Commissioner is unambiguously the ‘head of system’ for corrections in Victoria, and that should be incorporated into the Corrections Act 1986. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 118
Rec 51. The Panel recommends that forecasts of prisoner numbers be undertaken annually by the OCSC, with separate projections for male and female prisoners; that the OCSC track progress against projections on at least a quarterly basis; and that the OCSC undertake analysis of the reasons for significant variances between projections and actual numbers.
Rec 52. The Panel recommends that, in developing the Masterplan for the Victorian prison system, the OCSC seek advice from prison operators regarding operational requirements and the likely impacts of any proposed changes.
Rec 53. The Panel recommends that the initial Masterplan be completed by the OCSC by the end of 2000 and reviewed and updated six-monthly after that.
Rec 54. The Panel recommends that the Department of Justice allocate funding and call for tenders from Victorian universities for the establishment of a Correctional Research Institute.
Chapter 9 – Summary and Conclusion highlights some of the major themes arising from the review, and notes that the recommendations are based on the Panel’s views that the quality of the overall service to prisoners and the community matters more than who manages the prison. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 119
Appendix I Submissions to the Investigation Panel
Name Position Organisation (where applicable) Kevin Lewis Managing Director Australasian Correctional Management Anthony Calabro Executive Director Australian Community Support Organisation Dennis O’Neill Chief Executive Officer Australian Council for Infrastructure Development Limited Michael Dennis Barwon Prison Julian Knight Barwon Prison Liz Curran Executive Officer Catholic Commission for Justice, Development and Peace Fr Grant O’Neill Chaplain Catholic Prison Ministry Dr Bronwyn Naylor Centre for the Study of Privatisation and Public Martine Marich Accountability, Law Faculty, Monash Gail Hubble University Karen Batt Branch Secretary Community and Public Sector Union John Griffin Chief Executive CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise Richard Bourke Secretary Criminal Bar Association Rev Judy Redman Outreach Ministries Coordinator Criminal Justice Chaplains’ Advisory Committee Maartje Van-der-Vlies Criminologist (private) Ray Griffiths Director East Gippsland Institute of TAFE Kate Lawrence Corrections Working Group Federation of Community Legal Centres (Vic) Incorporated Karen Taylor Flat Out Marcus Williams Co-ordinator Footscray Community Legal Centre Michael Burt Chief Executive Officer Forensicare Stephen Masterson Fulham Correctional Centre Greg Welsh Fulham Correctional Centre Bill Henebery Chairman Fulham Correctional Centre Advisory Group Jim Pennell Member Fulham Correctional Centre Advisory Group Peter Olszak Managing Director Group 4 Securitas Greg Hooper H & S Support Services Beth Wilson Commissioner Health Services Commissioner Julie Levey-Williams Doctoral Student HUMCASS Department, Monash University Michael Strutt Spokesperson Justice Action, NSW Keith Hamburger Managing Director Knowledge Enterprises (Australia) Pty/Ltd Hon Glen Milliner Director, Business Development INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 120
Name Position Organisation (where applicable) Tina Millar President Law Institute Victoria Loddon Prisoner Consultative Committee Loddon Prison Rev Ray Cleary Chief Executive Officer Melbourne Citymission (anonymous) Member of the community Elizabeth Hogan Member of the community G King Member of the community David Ring Policy Worker Mental Health Legal Centre Inc. Gavan Tellefson Principal Solicitor Murray Mallee Community Legal Service (anonymous) Port Phillip Prison Paul Young Port Phillip Prison Tom Wallace Chairman Prison Industries Advisory Committee Karen Fletcher Coordinator Prisoners Legal Service Inc, Qld Dr Tricia A Fox Senior Lecturer, Welfare Studies School of Humanities, Communications & Social Sciences, Monash University Kerrie Cross Regional Chief Executive Officer Sisters of Charity Health Service Rev David Pargeter Director The Uniting Church in Australia Dr Mark Zirnsak Social Justice Development Officer Prof. Jarlath Ronayne Vice-Chancellor and President Victoria University of Technology Robin Inglis Research, Policy and Development Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service Co- Unit operative Ltd Dimity Fifer Chief Executive Officer Victorian Council of Social Service Carmel Benjamin Chairperson Victorian Women’s Prison Council Philip Grano Villamanta Legal Service Inc Damien Lawson Western Suburbs Legal Service Inc. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 121
Appendix II Consultations with Individuals and Organisations
Name Position Organisation (where applicable) His Hon. Justice Frank Chairman Adult Parole Board Vincent Cam Nguyen President Australian Vietnamese Women’s Welfare Tuong Nguyen Association Anthony Calabro Executive Director Australian Community Support Organisation David Rose Asst. Director, Policy & Planning Liz Curran Executive Officer Catholic Commission for Justice, Development Peter Johnston and Peace Judge John Hassett Fr Grant O’Neill Chaplain Catholic Prison Ministry Maartje Van-der-Vlies Criminologist Karen Batt Branch Secretary Community and Public Sector Union John Dickson Industrial Officer Richard Bourke Secretary Criminal Bar Association Josie Thwaites Client Manager, Enterprise Risk Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Services Michael Boswell Formerly of Dept of Corrective Services, SA Denise O’Brien Associate Director Operations East Gippsland Institute of TAFE Sue Clifford Corrections Education, Fulham CC Amanda George Community Lawyer Federation of Community Legal Centres Inc Pauline Spencer Case work Solicitor Fitzroy Legal Service Felicity Dunne Forensic Psychologist Michael Burt Chief Executive Officer Forensicare Professor Paul Mullen Denis Shelton Official Visitor Fulham Correctional Centre Samuel Johnston Official Visitor Fulham Correctional Centre Bill Henebery Chairman Fulham Correctional Centre Advisory Group Jim Pennell Member Beth Wilson Commissioner Health Services Commissioner Heather Andrews Inquiry Officer Father Peter Norden Director Jesuit Social Services Bernie Geary Program Director Tony Hayes Manager, Brosnan Centre Philip Jones Partner Maddock Lonie & Chisholm Kevin Phelan Senior Associate Rev Ray Cleary Chief Executive Officer Melbourne Citymission Margaret Ray Board member Merrilee Cox Research Officer Aileen Ashford A/GM, Western INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 122
Name Position Organisation (where applicable) Elizabeth Hogan Member of the community Merrlyn Irwin Member of the community Barry Richardson Member of the community Sophie Delaney Principal Solicitor Coordinator Mental Health Legal Centre Inc David Ring Policy Worker Peter Quincee Commander, Western Zone Metropolitan Fire & Emergency Services Board Joff Manders Inspector Felicity Jack Official Visitor Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre Janet Farrow Executive Director Moreland Hall Alcohol & Drug Centre Margaret Cooper Manager, Counselling Support Sally Laurie Manager, Education & Training Annie Trainor StepOut Kate Lawrence Community Lawyer North Melbourne Legal Service Simon Brown-Greaves Chief Executive Officer Occupational Services of Australia Robert Seamer Senior Assistant Ombudsman Office of the Ombudsman Professor Jim Beck Chief Executive Open Learning Australia Lynne Wenig Official Visitor Port Phillip Prison Barry Ellem Official Visitor Port Phillip Prison Dr Eugenie Tuck Clinical Director Port Phillip Health Services Richard Whaley Executive Director Prison Fellowship of Australia Tom Wallace Chairman Prison Industries Advisory Committee Jim Beggs Member Tony Delves Member Marg Swales Executive Officer Prison Network Ministries Captain Sophia Gibb Chaplain for Women in Court and The Salvation Army Prison Stephen Kerr Stephen Kerr & Associates Dr Mark Zirnsak Social Justice Development Officer The Uniting Church Rev Judy Redman Outreach Ministries Coordinator Rev Leslie Ann Curran Judy Lazarus Executive Officer VACRO Anne Rosewood Charandev Singh Victorian Deaths in Custody Watch Committee Carmel Benjamin Chairperson Victorian Women’s Prison Council Richard Harding Inspector of Custodial Services Western Australia INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 123
Department of Justice Secretary Deputy Secretary Justice Operations Director and staff, Justice Policy Commissioner and staff, Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner Chief Executive and staff, CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise
Private Prison Operators General Manager and staff, Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre General Manager and staff, Fulham Correctional Centre Director and staff, Port Phillip Prison Executive General Manager Human Resources, Australasian Correctional Management Managing Director and Commercial Director, Group 4 Securitas
Department of Human Services Director and staff, Aged, Community and Mental Health
Department of Education, Employment and Training Office of Post Compulsory Education, Training and Employment
The Panel also met with groups of staff and prisoners at the Metropolitan Women’s and Fulham Correctional Centres, and Port Phillip, Loddon and Tarrengower prisons.
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 125
Appendix III Status Report – Implementation of Recommendations from Inquiries and Reviews
INQUEST INTO FIVE DEATHS AT PORT PHILLIP PRISON OCSC - ACTIVITIES IN RESPONSE TO CORONER’S RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations Current Activities Progress & Future Activities Identification and High Risk Case Management Project Draft framework for the management of Management of At A working party of representatives from at risk prisoners was circulated to Risk Prisoners (R 1 all providers was convened in May 2000 correctional providers for comment and and 9). to develop a statewide framework for the feedback re implementation issues in Oct management of high risk prisoners. 2000. Finalised framework to be circulated to providers for implementation Dec 2000.
Suicide Risk Assessment Tool A pilot risk assessment tool has been A consultant was engaged in May 2000 to developed and a validation study is develop an actuarial suicide risk underway including MAP & PPP. assessment tool to be used at the point of Discussions have commenced re reception. validation study at MWCC. Following validation of the tool, a pilot study will be carried out, commencing in Nov/Dec 2000. Emergency All providers have emergency procedures OCSC will review current procedures in procedures (R 2 & 3) in place which are endorsed by OCSC. relation to first aid training and (1st Aid Training and emergency procedures, including those entry of emergency relating to entry of emergency vehicles to vehicles). prisons. Standards relating to Draft Principles for the Communication A working party consisting of the delivery of of Health related Information Across the correctional and health service providers medical and Victorian Correctional System have been is developing improved processes for the counselling services endorsed by the Corrections Health transfer of relevant information between (R 4 – 6). Board. correctional, health service, drug and Major issues: alcohol services and community corrections. • Recording of medical information. DHS is coordinating the standardisation DHS currently monitor recording of prisoner health files across the system. • Investigation of practices on health files in relation to Implementation of a standardised health medical assessment of suicide and self harm. management in file is planned by the end of 2000. relation to significant Strategies to minimise errors in the incidents. DHS conducts regular audits of the transfer of health files have been proposed • Prescription of transfer of health files between locations. by DHS. drugs INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 126
Recommendations Current Activities Progress & Future Activities
• Communication Prescription and administration of Corrections Health Board is considering between health medication is currently monitored by issues related to medication prescription. service and DHS against community standards. This will include an audit of medication correctional staff use by DHS. and community agencies. • Actuarial assessment of risk by health professionals.
Cell design (R 7 & 8) Building Design Review Project – Design of prototype cell has been focussing on the removal of more obvious endorsed by Sec Dept of Justice and hanging points in mainstream prison cells Commissioner. while maintaining habitability - Preparation of final draft of review commenced in July 2000. document is underway. Drugs in Prisons (R Redevelopment of the Corrections The role of PADD dogs and education of 10 & 11) (Role of Drug Policy family members is being progressed as PAD Dogs; & part of the Redevelopment of the Information for Corrections Drug Strategy. families) Liaison with families VACRO currently provides a range of OCSC will review current family liaison (R 12). family liaison and support activities & support initiatives in conjunction with across the system. VACRO and correctional providers. Communication from Processes are in place for referral of OCSC will liaise with Courts and Courts regarding risk magistrates’ and judges’ concerns providers around improving current factors (R13). regarding individual prisoners but may processes. Liaison will also occur with need improving. CJEP project regarding future Criminal Justice Enhancement Project requirements. (CJEP) will provide for information to be recorded and accessed at each stage of a persons involvement with the criminal justice system. Coronial and related OCSC has implemented revised standards A working group will be established, investigations (R14 for the review of deaths in prison. including representatives from Police, & 15). OCSC and Coroner’s Office to review investigatory standards for deaths in custody. OCSC will keep Coroner’s Office informed as to activities undertaken in response to Coronial findings and recommendations. Review of all parties OCSC made 16 recommendations to the Preliminary analysis and grouping of recommendations to Coroner which the Coroner recommended recommendations completed. The the Coroner in these be used as a baseline against which recommendations will be further reviewed Inquests (R16). recommendations from other parties be in order to identify any outstanding issues assessed. that need to be addressed. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 127
KIRBY REVIEW OCSC - ACTIVITIES IN RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS
Activity Responsibility Progress Timeframe Revise framework & OCSC Revised framework and terms of Completed. terms of reference for reference was completed and post incident reviews. implemented in Dec 1999. Develop best practice OCSC A working party of Draft framework for the model for management representatives from all providers management of at risk of high risk prisoners was convened in May 2000 to prisoners was circulated to (High Risk Case develop a statewide framework correctional providers for Management Project). for the management of high risk comment and feedback re prisoners, including: implementation issues in • Principles for the Oct 2000. management of high risk Finalised framework to be prisoners circulated to providers for • Common terminology across implementation Dec 2000. providers • Common mechanisms for recording of information in relation to management of high risk prisoners. Develop enhancements OCSC/DHS Phase 1: Prison Capacity Steering Indicative timelines for to provision of Committee has approved the new capacity (phase 1): to specialist mental creation of 10 additional acute be operational by mid health services. beds at Port Phillip Prison. 2001. Phase 2: Future planning for psychiatric services (male & female) will be addressed in the Strategy Paper for the Future Correctional Health Services Model. Develop guidelines for Corrections Principles for sharing of Draft Pro forma for exchange of Health Board - information endorsed by sharing of health related information between OCSC & DHS Corrections Health Board. information by Nov 2000. professional groups to co-ordinate Working Group has been formed and correctional staff to implement principles. and between providers.
Enhance information CJEP/OCSC Development of an application Expected completion date: systems in relation to that will hold data relevant to the June 2001. suicide and self harm. management of a person in custody anywhere in the criminal justice system, including information in relation to previous incidents of suicide and self harm.
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 129
Appendix IV Open Learning Australia and Private Prison Education/Training Requirements
OPEN LEARNING AUSTRALIA PROPOSAL FOR A COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION AND TRAINING PROGRAM FOR CUSTODIAL OFFICERS IN THE VICTORIAN PRISON SYSTEM.
A broad professional development program could be constructed, building on the current training programs for custodial officers, which would be enhanced by other professional development programs that articulate into nationally recognised qualifications.
1. The Proposed Education and Training Development Program
Training that provides for the ongoing career development of custodial officers (and possibly other correctional staff also) would include all or some of the following components:
1. Induction Training. 2. Industry Specific Correctional Services Training CSC30198Certificate III in Correctional Practice (Custodial Corrections) CSC30298Certificate III in Correctional Practice (Community Corrections) CSC30398Certificate III in Correctional Practice (Administration/Ancillary) CSC40198Certificate IV in Correctional Practice CSC50198 Diploma of Correctional Administration 3. Short course professional development providing articulation into nationally recognised qualifications. 4. Management induction and skills development. 5. Career and individual educational pathways.
2. Components of a Consolidated Program of Professional Development for Custodial Officers
A suite of programs offering a more comprehensive range of training options from which custodial officers could select in line with their individual needs and aspirations might be as follows.
I. Induction Program provided at prison in collaboration with OLA.1
II. Correctional Practice Training CSC30198Certificate III in Correctional Practice (Custodial Corrections) CSC30298Certificate III in Correctional Practice (Community Corrections) CSC30398Certificate III in Correctional Practice (Administration/Ancillary) CSC40198Certificate IV in Correctional Practice
1 Induction training for correctional officers through OLA incorporates the following delivery alternatives: • customised and personalised print based flexible learning materials; • customised and personalised on-line flexible learning materials; • face to face training and education, including mentoring, coaching and workshops; • combinations of the above; • assessment of competencies with the option of assessment on-line; • prison specific development activities; and • independent assessment of competencies. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 130
CSC50198 Diploma of Correctional Administration Academic collaborator: Swinburne University of Technology (OLA Shareholder)
III. Frontline Management Training Certificate III in Frontline Management Certificate IV in Frontline Management Diploma in Frontline Management Academic collaborator: RMIT University of Technology (OLA Shareholder)
IV. Certificate IV in Management Skills Academic Collaborator; Chisholm Institute of TAFE (OLA Provider Management and Leadership Sector Australian Federal Police)
V. Undergraduate Qualifications Bachelor of Business Studies (Monash University) Bachelor of Arts in Criminology and Criminal Justice (Griffith University)
VI. Postgraduate Qualifications Graduate Certificate in Business Leadership (University of South Australia) Graduate Diploma/Masters in IT Management (RMIT University) Graduate Certificate/Graduate Diploma/Masters in Correctional Services Management (Under development)
VII. Short-course professional development All OLA units can be taken individually as professional development.
All of these could be provided by OLA through flexible delivery mechanisms that could include tutor support at the workplace. All courses would be provided in partnership with a recognised Victorian tertiary institution. Linkages between programs are described in Figure 1 below.
3. Proposed development strategy
A Prison Education and Training Advisory Committee would be required to oversee the development of the consolidated program. This Committee would provide advice on course content so that it was customised for the needs of each prison, and monitor delivery quality. It would need to comprise representatives of providers and prisons.
In addition it may be desirable that a Prison Officers Education Coordinator with an understanding of correctional officer training needs be appointed to facilitate the program. The coordinator would carry out the day to day management of the program and advise custodial officers on training options, and would be supported by on-line support service or portal (through OLA) which includes capacity for personalisation for individual participant access to registration; study modules; personal study schedule, academic and personal record (where applicable); course descriptions; study advice; and publications and announcements.
In addition a team of Independent assessors with Certificate IV in Workplace Assessment would be required. A training and familiarisation program would also need to be developed for mentors and trainers. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 131
Consultation
A consultation process would be required between OLA, OCSC and representatives of prison management in order to: • establish the range of programs to be delivered. These would include induction training, professional development, management training and higher education needs; • establish the role of mentors/key personnel and instigate training programs; • develop information sessions about flexible learning through OLA including articulation pathways and professional development planning; • determine, where relevant, and establish the on-line needs of organisation with regard to customisation, mentors and assessment (this would be undertaken by OLA); • establish Mentors’ networks where applicable; • take decisions on component parts of the delivery, including face-to-face elements such as coaching, workshops and tuitional support; • establish ongoing monitoring processes; and • clarify the role of Advisory Committee(s) within individual prisons and OCSC.
Figure 1 provides a schematic representation of potential education and training options and pathways possible through a consolidated custodial officer professional education program provided through OLA. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 132
Fig 1 Prison Officers Professional Development Pathway
Masters in Correctional Services Management)
Graduate Diploma in Correctional Services Management Bachelor of Business Studies Bachelor of Arts Graduate Certificate in in Criminology Correctional Services and Criminal Management /Graduate Justice Certificate in Business (Leadership
**Diploma of Correctional **Certificate **Diploma in Frontline Administration IV in Management Certificate IV in Workplace Certificate IV in Frontline Correctional Practice Leadership Management (Certificate III in Frontline Management)
Certificate III in Correctional Practice (Custodial Corrections)
Induction Training
** Assessment of prior competencies and recognition of prior learning enable movement from one VET strand to another INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 133
Glossary
ACHS Australian Council of Health Services ACM Australasian Correctional Management CAC Chaplains Advisory Committee CCA Corrections Corporation of Australia CCPP Custodial Community Permit or temporary leave of absence Program CEO Chief Executive Officer CFA Country Fire Authority CIP Community Integration Program CITB Corrections Industry Training Board CJEP Criminal Justice Enhancement Program CORE CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise CPSU Community and Public Sector Union DCM Differentiated Case Management DHS Department of Human Services DOJ Department of Justice FCC Fulham Correctional Centre Group 4 Group 4 Securitas IMP Individual Management Plan MCAC Ministerial Community Advisory Committee MFB Metropolitan Fire Brigade MWCC Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre OCSC Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner OLA Open Learning Australia OOC Office of Corrections PETE (Office of) Post Compulsory Education, Training and Employment PFASAG Prison Fire and Safety Advisory Group PIMS Prisoner Information Management System PLF Performance Linked Fee PPP Port Phillip Prison PSA Prison Services Agreement RTO Registered Training Organisations SCH Student contact hours SDO Service Delivery Outcome SESG Security and Emergency Services Group SMU Sentence Management Unit VCAT Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal VPDS Victorian Prisons Drug Strategy VUT Victoria University of Technology
INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 135
Bibliography
ABC Radio National (transcript) 1998, ‘Background briefing: shrinking democracy’, broadcast on 1 November, produced by Tom Morton.
Administrative Review Council 1998, The Contracting Out of Government Services: Report No. 42, pp. 87–94.
Advocacy Program for Women in Prison 2000, MWCC Chronology 1992 – May 2000.
Auditor-General of Victoria 1999, Special Report No. 60, Victoria’s Prison System: Community Protection and Prison Welfare.
Auerhahn, Kathleen & Dermody Leonard, Elizabeth 2000, ‘Docile bodies? Chemical restraints and the female inmate’, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 90, no. 2, pp. 599–634.
Australasian Correctional Management Fulham Correctional Centre Commissioner’s Quarterly Compliance Report 1 January 2000 to 6 April 2000.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2000, Corrective Services Australia: June Quarter.
Australian Institute of Criminology 1999, ‘Ethnicity and Crime’ Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 117.
Barry, T. & O’Connor, J. 1998, Innovative approaches: Gresswell Women’s Service, Victoria, paper presented to the National Conference on Women: Alcohol and Other Drugs, Adelaide.
Bateman, A. & King, E. 1998, Audit and Review of Training within Correctional Services/Registered Training Organisations within the State of Victoria, Office of Training and Further Education, Melbourne.
Belcourt, R., Nouwens, T. & Lefebvre, L.1993, ‘Examining the unexamined: Recidivism among female offenders, Forum on Corrections Research, vol. 5, no. 3.
Biles, David & Dalton, Vicki 1999, ‘Deaths in private prisons 1990–99: A comparative study’, Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 120.
Blanchette, K. & Dowden, C. 1998, ‘A profile of sentenced women in the community: Addressing needs for successful integration’, Forum on Corrections Research, vol. 10, no. 1.
Butler, T 1997, Preliminary Findings from the Inmate health Survey (ie Physical and mental health Status) of the Inmate Population in the New South Wales Correctional Health System, Corrections Health Service.
Carach, Carlos & Grant, Anna 1999, ‘Imprisonment in Australia: Trends in prison populations & imprisonment rates 1982–1998’, Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 130.
Carcach, Carlos, & Grant, Anna 2000, ‘Australian corrections: Main demographic characteristics of prison populations’, Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 150.
Carnaby, Helen 1998, Road to Nowhere: A Report of Women’s Housing and Support Needs When Leaving Prison, Flat Out Inc., Collingwood, Victoria
Chan, J. B. 1994, ‘The privatisation of punishment: A review of the key issues’, in Private Prisons and Police, ed. P. Moyle, Pluto Press Australia.
Coburg Brunswick Community Legal and Financial Counselling Centre Coronial Inquest into the Death of Adam Courtney Irwin, Submissions on behalf of the Irwin Family – September 1999. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 136
CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise 1999, A Report on Matters Associated with Double Bunking In CORE Prisons, Operational Review and Inspections Unit.
CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise, A Review into Matters at Won Wron Prison, Department of Justice.
CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise, A Review of Escapes at Minimum Security Prisons, July 1997 to June 1999, Secondary Analysis, Department of Justice
CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise, Escapes and Incidents at Won Wron, Langi Kal Kal and Dhurringile Prison July 1993 to June 1999 Volume 1, A Comparative Analysis, Department of Justice.
Corrections Corporation of America 1997, Annual Report.
Dalton, Vicki 1998, ‘Prison deaths 1980–97: National overview and State trends,’ Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 81.
Davies, James 1998, ‘The effect of prison privatisation on the legal position of prisoners’, Australian Journal of Administrative Law, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 34–45.
Denton, B. 1994, Prison, Drugs and Women: Voices from Below, A Report for the National Campaign Against Drug Abuse. Melbourne.
Donahue J. 1989, The Privatisation Decision: Public Ends, Private Means, Basic Books, New York Basic Books.
Douez, Sophie 2000, ‘Death in custody raises the question of responsibility’ The Age, 15 July
Dunne, Felicity 2000, A Framework for Reducing Reoffending: Differentiated Case Management in Victorian Corrections, Department of Justice, Victoria.
Federation of Community Legal Centres (Vic.) Inc. 2000, Hanging Points at the Fulham Correctional Centre and Port Phillip Prison and the Victorian Government’s Implementation of Recommendation 165 of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody.
Fitzroy Legal Service Inc. & Mr Michael Hennessey of Counsel 1999 General Submission on Behalf of the Families of the Deceased. Inquests into the deaths of George Drinken, Rodney Koers & Michael Filips.
Fitzroy Legal Service Inc & Mr Michael Hennessey of Counsel 1999 Submission on Behalf of the Koers Family.
Fitzroy Legal Service Inc & Mr Michael Hennessey of Counsel 1999 Submission on Behalf of the Drinken Family.
Frieberg, Arie 1999, ‘Commercial confidentiality and public accountability for the provision of correctional services’, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 119–34.
Group 4 Securitas, Port Phillip Prison Operational Plan- 2000.
Haermeyer, A. 2000, Public Accounts and Estimates Committee: Police and Emergency Services and Corrections Subcommittee; Inquiry into 2000-01 Budget Estimates, Melbourne – 10 August 2000, pp.324-337
Haermeyer, A. 2000, Media Release: Government takes control of women’s prison, 3 October.
Harding, Richard 1997, Private Prisons and Public Accountability, Open University Press, Buckingham (UK).
Harding, Richard 1992 ‘Private Prisons in Australia’, Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, No.36.
Harding, Richard ‘Private prisons in Australia: The second phase’, at http://www.penlex.org.uk/pages/wnarc227.html#2 INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 137
Harding, Richard 1992 Privatising prisons: Principle and practice paper delivered at the AIC Conference 1992, New Zealand.
Harmsworth, Peter 1999, Into the 21st Century – Enhanced Departmental Management and Organisational Arrangements: Final Paper, Department of Justice.
Hart, Sam 2000, ‘Bound and gagged. Why are official observers being ignored when they report brutality against inmates?’ The Big Issue (UK), July 3–9.
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons 1997, ‘Women in prison: A thematic review, at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/hmipris/wippref.htm
Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons 1999, ‘Suicide is everyone’s concern: A thematic review’. http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Tests of a Healthy Prison: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Strategic Plan 1999–2002.
Home Office 2000, ‘Inspecting the Work of the prison and probation services: Options for the future’, at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/cpd/cpu/inspect.htm
Home Office 2000, Modernising the Management of the Prison Service: an Independent Report by the Targeted Performance Initiative Working Group Chaired by Lord Laming of Tewin CBE.
Home Office 2000, The Business Plan for HM Prison Service 2000–2001.
Home Secretary, ‘Penal structure in England and Wales’, at http://www.penlex.org.uk/pages/penstruc.html
Howells, Kevin & Day, Andrew 1999, ‘The rehabilitation of offenders: International perspectives applied to Australian correctional systems’, Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 112.
Infield, Paul 1997, ‘Boards of visitors and the “watchdog” role: Poodle or rottweiler?’ in The Prisons Handbook, 1997/98, ed. Mark Leech, Pluto Press, 1997.
“Jarvis v Australasian Correctional Management Pty Ltd 1994 No. 663 of 1994, unreported, District Court, Brisbane.
Johnstone, G. 2000 Deaths in Custody at Port Phillip Prison: Record of investigation into the deaths of George Andrew Drinken, Adam Courtney Irwin, Vienh Chi Tu, Michael Filips and Rodney David Koers, Part 1 Findings, Discussion, Recommendations and Comments. Coronial Services Centre, Victoria.
KPMG Consulting 1995, Correctional Services Restructuring: Final Report. Department of Justice
KPMG Consulting 1999, Review of the Victorian Prisons Drug Strategy, Department of Justice.
KPMG Consulting for the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner 2000, Review of Service Delivery Outcomes: Final Report.
Makkai, Toni 1999, ‘Linking drugs & criminal activity: Developing an integrated monitoring system’, Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice,No. 109.
Moyle, Paul 1994, Private Prisons and Police, Pluto Press, Australia.
Moyle, Paul 1998, ‘Unsafe work practices lead to findings of negligence against private prison operator: Jarvis v Australasian Correctional Management Pty Ltd’, E Law – Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, vol. 5, no.1.
Moyle, Paul 2000, Profiting From Punishment. Private Prisons in Australia: Reform or Regression?, Pluto Press, pp. 194–243. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 138
Moyle, Paul ‘Will the private sector improve the prison system through competition, market testing or cross- fertilisation?’ at http://www.penlex.org.uk/pages/moyle01.html
Newkirk, C. 1993, Mental health needs of the female offender, paper presented at the Fifth World Conference on Prison Health, Brisbane.
Office of Corrections Victoria 1983, Corrections Master Plan Victoria, Volumes 1 & 2, Neilson Associates.
Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner 1995, Correctional Policy and Management Standards: Women’s Prisons in Victoria Department of Justice.
Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner 1996, Correctional Policy and Management Standards: Men’s Prisons in Victoria Department of Justice.
Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner 2000, CORE – the Public Correctional Enterprise Prisons: Commissioner’s Quarterly Report 1 April 2000 to 30 June 2000.
Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner 2000, Development of PIMS Awareness Training Package, Progress Report.
Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner 2000 Fulham Correctional Centre: Commissioner’s Quarterly Compliance Report 1 January 2000 to 6 April 2000.
Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner 2000 Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre: Commissioner’s Quarterly Compliance Report 1 March 2000 to 31 May 2000.
Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner 2000 Port Phillip Prison: Commissioner’s Quarterly Report 1 March 2000 to 31 May 2000.
Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner 2000 Statistical Profile: The Victorian Prison System 1995- 96 to 1998-99, Department of Justice.
Office of Training and Further Education 1999, Planning Guide for Providers of Training and Further Education in Victoria 2000-2002.
Peach, F. J. 1999, Corrections in the Balance: A Review of Corrective Services in Queensland, Queensland Government.
Pinnuck, Francine 1998, ‘The medication of prisoners: A cause for concern’, Just Policy, no.12, pp. 13–19.
Raynor, M., 1993 Report into Allegations of Discrimination Against Female Prisoners at HMP Barwon, Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission, Melbourne.
Russell, E. W. 2000, Audit Review of Government Contracts: Contracting, Privatisation, Probity and Disclosure in Victoria 1992–1999.
Security and Emergency Services Group 2000, Security Review of the Metropolitan Women’s Correctional Centre. Conducted by the Security and Emergency Services Group on behalf of the Correctional Services Commissioner.
Straw, The Rt Hon. Jack 1998, ‘Making prisons work’, The Prison Reform Trust Annual Lecture at http://www.penlex.org.uk/pages/prtpwork.html
UK Prison Reform Trust 2000, ‘Crucial lessons from New Mexico’, Prison Privatisation International, no. 33.
“Victorian Community Legal Centres vs the Prison Industrial Complex”, Framed – Quarterly Magazine of Justice Action, Issue No 37 (1999)
Victorian Correctional Services Task Force 1998, Review of Suicides and Self-Harm in Victorian Prisons. INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION INTO THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF VICTORIA’S PRIVATE PRISONS October 2000 Page 139
Victorian Deaths in Custody Watch Committee 2000, Port Phillip Prison Chronology 1992 to April 2000.
Victorian WorkCover Authority documents released pursuant to the FOI Act 1982 re: MWCC 1999–2000.
Viljoen, J. 1998 ‘Strategic measurement – Measuring the relevant’ paper presented at Measuring Public Sector Performance: Benchmarks of Effectiveness, Institute of Public Administration Australia
Vincent, Justice Frank 1997, Contracting out community corrections: The judicial perspective, paper presented at the Australian Institute of Criminology Conference Privatisation and Public Policy: A Correctional Case Study. Melbourne, 16 June 1997.
Weiser-Easteal, Patricia 1992, ‘Women and crime: Imprisonment issues’, Australian Institute of Criminology, Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 35.
Western Australia Court Security and Custodial Services Act 1999. Part 5 – Inspector of Custodial Services and s 45 – Annual Reports.
Western Australian Prisons Amendment Act 1999, No 43 of 1999, Part IIIA – Contracts for Prison Services and Part XA – Inspector of Custodial Services.
Win News (transcript) 2000, ‘Private prison system blamed for the death of son, interview: Christine Henry, victim’s mother’, 30 March.
Women Prisoners and Offenders Advisory Committee 1991, Women Prisoners and Offenders: The Agenda for Change, Office of Corrections.